Kalu Howladar vs Union Of India & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 15 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010192282025
+ W.P.(C) 4446/2025
KALU HOWLADAR .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Srivats Kushal, SPC

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER PAL SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the
Respondents to grant disability pension to the Petitioner along with other
benefits as detailed in the petition, including ex-gratia compensation.
2. As pleaded in the petition, Petitioner was appointed in BSF in 2008 as
Constable (GD). In 2012, he started suffering from sleeplessness, palpitation
and headache and was examined by Chief Medical Officer (SG) of Sector
Hospital Kishanganj, who referred him to Psychiatry Department of MGM
Medical College and Lions Seva Kendra Hospital, where he was diagnosed
as a case of ‘mixed depression with anxiety disorder’ and was advised
anti-psychiatric drug and light duty without arms. After Petitioner was
examined at different hospitals, he was placed in Low Medical Category
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
W.P.(C) 4446/2025 Page 1 of 8


(LMC) S3 (T-12) H1A1P1E1 on 21.11.2013, owing to ‘Mixed Depression
with Anxiety Disorder’ and ‘Phobic Disorder’. Petitioner continued the
treatment till September, 2017 and on 22.04.2019, Suitability Certificate was
issued by Commandant (Medical), FTR HQ SB BSF, recommending that he
could be suitably employed in another appointment, as per his medical
category/illness.
3. It is stated that on 20.09.2021, Medical Board was convened to assess
the Petitioner and he was diagnosed with ‘Bipolar Mood Disorder’ and the
disability was assessed at 70% permanent albeit the Board opined that the
disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. Basis this
opinion, Petitioner was discharged from service w.e.f. 30.11.2021 on ground
of medical unfitness but was denied disability pension and other benefits
such as benefits under Golden Jubilee Seema Prahari Kalyan Kawach and
SBI Central Armed Police Salary Package as also ex-gratia compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner was
completely physically fit and not suffering from any disease/disability when
he was enrolled in BSF in 2008 and in all the annual medical examinations
conducted prior to 2012, Petitioner was found in SHAPE-1. This being the
position, the disability of ‘Bipolar Mood Disorder’ suffered by the Petitioner
during his service with BSF shall be presumed to be attributable to service
conditions and to buttress this plea, counsel places reliance on the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India , 2013 SCC
OnLine SC 538.
5. It is further urged that Rule 9(1) of Central Civil Services
(Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 (EOP Rules), provides that when
disablement of Government servant is conceded as due to Government
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
W.P.(C) 4446/2025 Page 2 of 8


service, he shall be awarded disability pension. An added factor that the
Medical Board itself opined that the disability was contracted by the
Petitioner in service and in circumstances over which Petitioner had no
control, is pleaded in favour of the Petitioner and to support this plea,
reliance is placed on the judgment in Shatrughana Pingua v. Union of
India and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9975.
6. Arguing for the Respondents, learned SPC submits that while facts
are not in dispute, however, the disease ‘Bipolar Mood Disorder’ is not
covered in Schedule 1-A of EOP Rules and moreover, when the Medical
Board has opined that the disability is neither attributable to nor aggravated
by service and findings and opinion of the Medical Board have to be given
primacy and cannot be substituted by the Courts, the claim of the Petitioner
for disability pension is misplaced.
7. Heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their
submissions.
8. Parties are not at variance that when the Petitioner was enrolled in
BSF in 2008, he was not suffering from any disease or disability and was
completely medically fit. The disability ‘Bipolar Mood Disorder’ was
incurred by the Petitioner during BSF service. The contention of the
Respondents that since the Medical Board opined that the said disability was
neither attributable to nor aggravated due to service and/or the said disease
is not part of Schedule 1-A of the EOP Rules, cannot be accepted in light of
the wealth of judicial precedent that a member of Force is to be presumed in
sound physical and mental condition upon entering service, if there is no
note or record at the time of his entrance to the contrary and in the event of
his subsequently being discharged from service on medical grounds, any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
W.P.(C) 4446/2025 Page 3 of 8


deterioration in health is to be presumed due to service as also that the onus
of proof is not on the claimant but on the employer, to show that disability is
neither attributable nor aggravated by service conditions. In this context, we
may first allude to a passage from the judgment in Dharamvir Singh
(supra), as follows:-
“ 29. A conjoint reading of various provisions, reproduced above, makes it
clear that:
29.1. Disability pension to be granted to an individual who is
invalided from service on account of a disability which is attributable
to or aggravated by military service in non-battle casualty and is
assessed at 20% or over. The question whether a disability is
attributable to or aggravated by military service to be determined
under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 of
Appendix II (Regulation 173).
29.2. A member is to be presumed in sound physical and mental
condition upon entering service if there is no note or record at the
time of entrance. In the event of his subsequently being discharged
from service on medical grounds any deterioration in his health is to
be presumed due to service [Rule 5 read with Rule 14(b)].
29.3. The onus of proof is not on the claimant (employee), the
corollary is that onus of proof that the condition for non-entitlement is
with the employer. A claimant has a right to derive benefit of any
reasonable doubt and is entitled for pensionary benefit more liberally
(Rule 9).
29.4. If a disease is accepted to have been as having arisen in service,
it must also be established that the conditions of military service
determined or contributed to the onset of the disease and that the
conditions were due to the circumstances of duty in military service
[Rule 14(c)].
29.5. If no note of any disability or disease was made at the time of
individual's acceptance for military service, a disease which has led to
an individual's discharge or death will be deemed to have arisen in
service [Rule 14(b)].
29.6. If medical opinion holds that the disease could not have been
detected on medical examination prior to the acceptance for service
and that disease will not be deemed to have arisen during service, the
Medical Board is required to state the reasons [Rule 14(b)]; and
29.7. It is mandatory for the Medical Board to follow the guidelines
laid down in Chapter II of the Guide to Medical Officers (Military
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
W.P.(C) 4446/2025 Page 4 of 8


Pensions), 2002 — “Entitlement: General Principles”, including
Paras 7, 8 and 9 as referred to above (para 27).”

9. In Union of India and Another v. Rajbir Singh, (2015) 12 SCC 264,
the Supreme Court reiterated the legal position and held that the essence of
Pension Regulations, Entitlement Rules and Guidelines to Medical Officers
is that member of the Armed Force is presumed to be in sound physical and
mental condition at the time of his entering into service if there is no note or
record to the contrary at the time of such entry and in the event of his
subsequent discharge on medical ground, any deterioration in health is to be
presumed to be due to military service. This necessarily implies that no
sooner a member of the Force is discharged on medical ground his
entitlement to claim disability pension will arise unless the employer is in a
position to rebut the presumption that the disability was neither attributable
to nor aggravated by the military service and that this position is reinforced
by Rule 14(b) of Entitlement Rules 1982. Relevant passages from the
judgment are as follows:-
“ 14. The legal position as stated in Dharamvir Singh case [Dharamvir
Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 316 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 706] is,
in our opinion, in tune with the Pension Regulations, the Entitlement Rules
and the Guidelines issued to the Medical Officers. The essence of the
rules, as seen earlier, is that a member of the armed forces is presumed to
be in sound physical and mental condition at the time of his entry into
service if there is no note or record to the contrary made at the time of
such entry. More importantly, in the event of his subsequent discharge
from service on medical ground, any deterioration in his health is
presumed to be due to military service. This necessarily implies that no
sooner a member of the force is discharged on medical ground his
entitlement to claim disability pension will arise unless of course the
employer is in a position to rebut the presumption that the disability which
he suffered was neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service.
15. From Rule 14(b) of the Entitlement Rules it is further clear that if the
medical opinion were to hold that the disease suffered by the member of
the armed forces could not have been detected prior to acceptance for
service, the Medical Board must state the reasons for saying so. Last but
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
W.P.(C) 4446/2025 Page 5 of 8


not the least is the fact that the provision for payment of disability pension
is a beneficial provision which ought to be interpreted liberally so as to
benefit those who have been sent home with a disability at times even
before they completed their tenure in the armed forces. There may indeed
be cases, where the disease was wholly unrelated to military service, but,
in order that denial of disability pension can be justified on that ground, it
must be affirmatively proved that the disease had nothing to do with such
service. The burden to establish such a disconnect would lie heavily upon
the employer for otherwise the rules raise a presumption that the
deterioration in the health of the member of the service is on account of
military service or aggravated by it. A soldier cannot be asked to prove
that the disease was contracted by him on account of military service or
was aggravated by the same. The very fact that he was upon proper
physical and other tests found fit to serve in the army should rise as indeed
the rules do provide for a presumption that he was disease-free at the time
of his entry into service. That presumption continues till it is proved by the
employer that the disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by
military service. For the employer to say so, the least that is required is a
statement of reasons supporting that view. That we feel is the true essence
of the rules which ought to be kept in view all the time while dealing with
cases of disability pension.
16. Applying the above parameters to the cases at hand, we are of the view
that each one of the respondents having been discharged from service on
account of medical disease/disability, the disability must be presumed to
have been arisen in the course of service which must, in the absence of any
reason recorded by the Medical Board, be presumed to have been
attributable to or aggravated by military service. There is admittedly
neither any note in the service records of the respondents at the time of
their entry into service nor have any reasons been recorded by the
Medical Board to suggest that the disease which the member concerned
was found to be suffering from could not have been detected at the time of
his entry into service. The initial presumption that the respondents were
all physically fit and free from any disease and in sound physical and
mental condition at the time of their entry into service thus remains
unrebutted. Since the disability has in each case been assessed at more
than 20%, their claim to disability pension could not have been repudiated
by the appellants.”

10. Be it noted that in Rajbir Singh (Supra), the Supreme Court was
dealing with several appeals instituted by Union of India against orders of
the Tribunal concerning different diseases/disabilities and in one of appeals,
Respondent was suffering from ‘Bipolar Mood Disorders’, as is the case
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
W.P.(C) 4446/2025 Page 6 of 8


here and the Supreme Court held that Respondents having been discharged
from service on account of medical disease/disability, the disability must be
presumed to have arisen in course of service and attributable to or
aggravated by military service, in the absence of any reason recorded by the
Medical Board demonstrating to the contrary. Sans any note in the service
records of the Respondents at the time of entry of any pre-existing
disease/illness/disability or reasons by the Medical Board to suggest that the
disability could not have been detected at the time of entry, the disability
will be presumed to be caused due to service conditions. Following these
judgements, this Court has passed several judgements, allowing claims of
disability pension but in order to avoid prolixity, we may refer to the
judgment in Union of India and Others v. Ex Sub Gawas Anil Madso,
2025 SCC OnLine Del 2018, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court
as also specifically the judgments in Pramod Kumar v. Union of India &
Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9306; Manvir Singh v. Union of India and
Others, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4542; and Union of India and Others v.
Col. Mukesh Kumar Khattar (Retd.), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5162, where
the disability was ‘Bipolar Mood Disorder’, as in this case.
11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is also right in her submission that
the Medical Board held on 07.10.2015 found that the disability was
contracted in service and in circumstances over which Petitioner had no
control and to this extent, case of the Petitioner is covered by the judgment
of this Court in Shatrughana Pingua (supra), wherein it was held that
where the disability is admitted to have been contracted in service, it is not
necessary to enter into whether it had any connection with the service, in
light of law laid down in Dharamvir Singh (supra), unless the Respondents
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
W.P.(C) 4446/2025 Page 7 of 8


discharge the onus of showing that the disability was neither attributable to
nor aggravated due to service conditions. It was observed that a mere
opinion by the Board that disability is not attributable to service, in the
absence of any other attributable factor being identified, is insufficient.
12. In light of the aforesaid judgments and finding of the Medical Board
itself that the disability of ‘Bipolar Mood Disorder’ is contracted in service,
the petitioner deserves to succeed. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed,
directing the Respondents to grant disability pension to the Petitioner by
taking the disability at 70% for life from the date the Petitioner was
invalidated out of service. Arrears shall be paid within three months from
today and in the absence of payment, the amount shall carry interest @ 6%
p.a. till the actual date of payment. Insofar as the other reliefs claimed in the
petition are concerned, it is left open to the Petitioner to make representation
to the Respondents within one month from today and as and when the
representation is received, the same shall be decided within six weeks, in
accordance with law. Petitioner may take recourse to legal remedies if
aggrieved by the decision.
13. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid term.


JYOTI SINGH, J


GURVINDER PAL SINGH, J
OCTOBER 15, 2026/HS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:04.11.2026
18:54:45
W.P.(C) 4446/2025 Page 8 of 8