[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Mohd. Jameel Abassi vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 December, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 19024/2025
MOHD. JAMEEL ABASSI .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba and Ms.
Nidhi Sharma, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Dhananjai Rana, CGSC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 22.12.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The prayer of the petitioner in this case is for disability pension
in terms of Rule 4(1) and (2)1 of the Central Civil Services
(Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 20232.
2. The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in the Border
Security Force3 on 31 July 1994. Almost three decades after he was
enrolled, he was diagnosed by the Medical Superintendent,
Government Psychiatric Diseases Hospital, Srinagar on 3 March 2022
1 4. Conditions for grant of disability pension or family pension.-
(1) A disability pension or family pension shall be granted under these rules, if there is a
causal connection between,-
(a) disablement of a Government servant and Government service; or
(b) death of a Government servant and Government service.
(2) The disablement shall be reckoned as due to the Government service, if it is certified that
the same is due to wound, injury or disease, which,-
(a) is attributable to Government service; or
(b) existed before or arose during the Government service and has aggravated
thereby.
2 "the CCS (EOP) Rules" hereinafter
3 "BSF" hereinafter
W.P.(C) 19024/2025
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2025
18:29:10
as suffering from Major Depressive Disorder with Comorbid
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
3. A Medical Board was convened on 20 March 2023 to assess the
fitness of the petitioner to continue in service. The Medical Board
opined that the petitioner was a case of Major Depressive Disorder
and was considered unfit for further service in the BSF. The Board
also opined that the disability was aggravated by service. The Medical
Board proceedings read thus:
"PART-II OF MEDICAL BOARD PROCEEDINGS
No 941520102 Rank HC/GD, Name Mohd. Jameel Unit/HQ.- 24
Bn. BSF
1. Findings by the Board in brief (if different from the
findings mentioned in Part-I):- NIL
Opinion of the board:-
2. The board having examined Regt. No. 941520102 Rank
HC/GD Name Mohd. Jameel of 24 Bn. BSF, is of the opinion that
he is a case of "Major Depressive Disorder" and is considered unfit
for further service in BSF.
3. Was the disability 4. Was it contracted in
contracted in service ? circumstances over which
Yes he had no control?
Yes
5. It is directly attributable to 6. If so, by what specific
conditions of service ? conditions?
No N/A
7. If not directly attributable 8. Medical category
to service, was it recommended
aggravated thereby and if S5h1A1P1E1
so, by what specific
conditions?
Yes, due to stress &
strain.
9. Percentage of disability. 10. Period for which the
W.P.(C) 19024/2025
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2025
18:29:10
54% (Fifty-Four above medical category is
Percentage) recommended
Permanent
11. Further treatment/ 12. Next Board due on
investigation NA
recommended
As advised by
Psychiatrist.
13. Employability restrictions:- Not fit for further service in
BSF.
Place - CH BSF Srinagar
Dated the 20th March 2023
Presiding officer:- s/d 20/03/2023
Dr. P. Thomte Comdt.- CMO(SG), 104 Bn. BSF"
4. The petitioner, thereafter, took voluntary retirement from
service. On the petitioner not being granted disability pension, he has
approached this Court.
5. The only submission of Mr. Dhananjai Rana, learned CGSC for
the respondents, is that, as the petitioner had availed voluntary
retirement, the petitioner was not entitled to disability pension.
6. There is no provision in the Central Civil Services
(Extraordinary Pension) Rules which disentitles the petitioner to
disability pension even if he has taken voluntary retirement. We may
contrast this case with the facts which were before the Supreme Court
in Union of India v. Ajay Wahi4 in which there was a specific
provision disentitling the candidate to disability pension in a case
where the candidate took voluntary retirement. No such provision
4 (2010) 11 SCC 213
W.P.(C) 19024/2025
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2025
18:29:10
exists in the present case.
7. We have also noted this point of difference in our decision in
Union of India v. Major Gaurav Sheoran Retd.5.
8. As such, the petitioner is entitled to disability pension as sought.
9. Let the disability pension be disbursed to the petitioner from the
date of his voluntary retirement within a period of 12 weeks from
today. Default in that regard would entail interest at the rate of 12%
per annum till actual payment.
10. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
DECEMBER 22, 2025/aky
5 Judgment dated 9 October 2025 in WP(C) 14393/2024
W.P.(C) 19024/2025
KUMAR
Signing Date:23.12.2025
18:29:10
