Surender Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 12 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010484422026
+ W.P.(C) 14867/2026
SURENDER KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhargava, Mr.
Ajinkya Dhalwade and Mr. Nikhel Kumar,
Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Shashank Bajpai, CGSC with Ms.
Aashna Mehra, Mr. Vatsal Tripathi, Mr. Govind
Singh Chauhan, Advocates.

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 direction to the Respondents to grant ex-
gratia compensation to the Petitioner in terms of Office Memorandums
(OMs) dated 21.04.2011 and 07.06.2017, issued by Respondent No. 1 along
with interest of 9% p.a. from 23.01.2025, when Petitioner was invalidated
from service.
2. Case of the Petitioner as pleaded in the writ petition is that Petitioner
was appointed as ASI/T in CRPF after being declared completely medically
fit in all respects upon clearing the Detailed Medical Examination and had
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:30.10.2026
18:07:30
W.P.(C) 14867/2026 Page 1 of 10


no pre-existing disease or disability. While serving in CRPF Petitioner was
examined by Invalidation Medical Board (IMB) on 24.08.2024 at Composite
Hospital, CRPF, Hyderabad and was assessed to be suffering from ‘Severe
Depressive Disorder with Deliberate Self Harm (DSH)- attempted suicide by
hanging from a ceiling fan’ and the disability was assessed at 70%. IMB
recommended invalidation of the Petitioner from service.
3. It is stated that vide order dated 23.01.2025 issued by Commandant, 4
Signal Battalion, CRPF, Neemuch, Petitioner was invalidated from service
with effect from 23.01.2025 and struck off from strength of the unit on the
same day, with all permissible pensionary benefits. However, neither
disability pension nor ex-gratia compensation was granted to the Petitioner,
despite his disablement and invalidation from service on medical ground and
hence, this petition was filed.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner is entitled to
ex-gratia compensation in light of OMs dated 21.04.2011 and 07.06.2017
issued by Respondent No.1 as he has been invalidated from service owing to
disability contracted during CRPF service. Though it is true that Medical
Board in the instant case has opined that the disability is not related to
military service, however, it cannot be overlooked that Petitioner was
medically fit at the time of enrolment and there was no pre-existing illness.
The disability developed during the course of service and this formed the
basis of Petitioner being declared unfit and his invalidation from service.
Petitioner performed his duties in areas involving continuous operational
stress and in the absence of any note or record at the time of his enrolment
that Petitioner was not in sound medical health, any deterioration in health
or any illness that is contracted during service, must be presumed to have
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:30.10.2026
18:07:30
W.P.(C) 14867/2026 Page 2 of 10


arisen due to service conditions. It is urged that case of the Petitioner is
covered by the judgment of this Court in Roshan Lal v. Union of India and
Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4867, wherein relying on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India and Others,
(2013) 7 SCC 316, the Division Bench held that there is not an iota of doubt
that at the time of appointment in service by CRPF in 1988, Petitioner was
in good state of health and mind and Respondents have been unable to bring
any document on record to show that Petitioner had not sustained disability
during the course of performance of his duties and thus, the Petitioner is
entitled to disability pension.
5. It is further urged that in Dharamvir Singh (supra), the Supreme
Court held that a member of the Force is to be presumed in sound physical
and mental condition upon entering service if there was no note or record at
the time of entrance to show otherwise. 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 and the onus of proof is not on the
employee but on the employer to establish that deterioration in health was
not due to service conditions. If medical opinion holds that the disease has
not arisen in service or aggravated by it, it is required to state the reasons.
Since Petitioner was medically fit at the time of enrolment, the disability in
question will be presumed to be aggravated by service conditions, even if
not attributable and therefore, case of the Petitioner is also covered by the
judgment in Kalu Ram v. Union of India and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine
Del 9748 for grant of ex-gratia compensation.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that Petitioner is not
entitled to ex-gratia compensation since IMB convened on 24.08.2024 has
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:30.10.2026
18:07:30
W.P.(C) 14867/2026 Page 3 of 10


not opined that the disability incurred by the Petitioner being ‘Severe
Depressive Disorder with Deliberate Self Harm (DSH)’ is either attributable
or aggravated by his service in CRPF and pre-condition for ex-gratia
payment under OM dated 21.04.2011 is that the personnel must be boarded
out from service on account of disability attributable to or aggravated by
service.
7. We have heard counsels for the parties and examined their
submissions.
8. Petitioner was enrolled in CRPF in 2009 after being declared
completely medically fit in all respects and clearing the stringent medical
examination at the time of enrolment and there was no note in the record
that Petitioner suffered from any pre-existing disease or disability.
Admittedly, the IMB assessed the Petitioner as suffering from ‘Severe
Depressive Disorder with Deliberate Self Harm (DSH)- attempted suicide by
hanging from a ceiling fan’ and recommended invalidation from service.
The disability was assessed at 70%. Basis the recommendation, Petitioner
was invalidated from service vide order dated 23.01.2025 with permissible
pensionary benefits but neither disability pension nor ex-gratia
compensation was granted to him and this decision was based on the ground
that the disability incurred by the Petitioner was not held to be attributable or
aggravated due to service conditions by the IMB.
9. The question for consideration before this Court is whether in the
absence of a finding by the IMB that the disability of the Petitioner is
attributable or aggravated due to CRPF service, Petitioner can be granted ex-
gratia compensation. There is no doubt that OM dated 21.04.2011 provides
that CAPFs personnel who are disabled in the performance of their bona fide
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:30.10.2026
18:07:30
W.P.(C) 14867/2026 Page 4 of 10


official duties under various circumstances and are boarded out from service
on account of disability attributable to or aggravated in service, shall be paid
ex-gratia compensation amounting to Rs. 9 Lacs for 100% disability and for
cases with lesser disability, the amount of compensation will be reduced in
proportion to the degree of disability, as mentioned therein. By OM dated
07.06.2017, the amount of ex-gratia compensation was revised. Therefore,
attributability or aggravation by service conditions, is a pre-condition for
grant of ex-gratia compensation when a member of the force incurs a
disability, which leads to his medical invalidation in service.
10. In our view, Petitioner cannot be denied the ex-gratia compensation
and we say so for the reason that it is no longer res integra that a member of
the 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 entrance, which
establishes otherwise. In the eventuality of his being discharged from service
subsequently on medical ground, any deterioration in his health is to be
presumed due to service as per Rule 5 read with Rule 14(b) of the
Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 albeit Rule 5 of
Entitlement Rules, 2008 withdraws this presumption by adding a casual
connection requirement. However, it may be noted here that the Supreme
Court in Union of India and Others v. Col. NC Isaac (Retd.) , 2026 SCC
OnLine SC 1895, examined this issue and held that the mere addition of a
casual requirement and removal of presumption that when a member joins
service healthy and leaves with a disability, it ought to be attributable to the
military service, does not, by itself, change the core scheme of Entitlement
Rules, 2008 because the other beneficial provisions broadly remained
untouched. The onus to prove that the member’s disability is not attributable
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:30.10.2026
18:07:30
W.P.(C) 14867/2026 Page 5 of 10


to service still lies on the employer. The relevant rules regarding
attributability and aggravation continue to hold that if cause of disability is
unknown and presumption of attributability is not rebutted, then the
disability is attributable to service. Rule 7 of Entitlement Rules, 2008 read
with Regulations for the Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 2010
continue to generate a reasonable benefit of doubt in favour of service
member. Rule 9 of Entitlement Rules, 1982 provides that onus of proof is
not on the claimant who is declared disabled from service, to prove his
entitlement on pension and Rule 7 of Entitlement Rules, 2008, broadly
carries forward this rule position and continues to place the onus of proof on
the employer. Relevant passages from the judgement are as follows:-
“ i. No significant change in core scheme
30. Having conducted a comparative analysis of the modifications in the
Entitlement Rules, 2008, our opinion against each subject is as follows –

30.1. Presumption at Entry of Service : Rule 5 of the Entitlement Rules,
1982 clearly creates a presumption that a member of service is in sound
physical and mental health at the time of entrance, and as such, any
disability at the time of discharge would be attributable to military service.
Rule 5 of the Entitlement Rules, 2008 withdraws this presumption by
adding a causal connection requirement. It notes ‘mere fact that a disease
has manifested during military service does not per se establish
attributability to or aggravation by military service’.

30.2. Causal Connection : Rule 8 of the Entitlement Rules, 1982 and Rule
6 of the Entitlement Rules, 2008 even though the framing is different, in
substance, are identical. Rule 8 requires an appropriate medical authority
to certify the causal connection, while Rule 6 of the Entitlement Rules,
2008 requires an appropriate authority to establish a causal connection.

30.3. Onus of Proof: Rule 9 of the Entitlement Rules, 1982 holds that the
ex-servicemen will receive a reasonable benefit of doubt and that they
shall not be called upon to prove their disability is attributable to service.
Rule 7 of the Entitlement Rules, 2008 broadly carries forward this rule
position and continues to place the onus of proof on the employer.

30.4. However, this rule carves out a narrow exception to this rule, being
claims made after 15 years of discharge/retirement/invalidment/release.
While this exception is significant for different reasons, which shall be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:30.10.2026
18:07:30
W.P.(C) 14867/2026 Page 6 of 10


discussed, suffice it to say that Rule 7 of Entitlement Rules, 2008 broadly
carries forward Rule 9 of Entitlement Rules, 1982.

30.5. Aggravation: Rule 20 of the Entitlement Rules, 1982 operates for
servicemen who have disabilities which may not be attributable to service,
but may have been aggravated by service. It assumes aggravation unless it
is specifically proved that aggravation was not caused due to service. Rule
11 of the Entitlement Rules, 2008 not only reproduces an identical scheme
from the earlier rule, but also further clarifies the Rule by noting that
“disability shall be conceded aggravated by service if its onset is hastened
or the subsequent course is worsened by specific conditions”.

30.6. When cause of disability is unknown: Rule 20(a) of the Entitlement
Rules, 1982 concedes attributability to military service in cases where the
cause of disease is unknown. Rule 10(b)(iii) of the Entitlement Rules, 2008
parallels this logic and only clarifies that attributability is to be conceded
on basis of clinical picture and current scientific medical application.

30.7. Conclusion: The mere addition of a causal requirement and a
removal of the presumption that when a member joins service healthy,
and, if, he leaves with a disability, it ought to be attributable to the
military service, does not, by itself, change the core scheme of the
Entitlement Rules, 2008 because the other beneficial provisions broadly
remain untouched. The onus to prove that the member's disability is not
attributable to service still lies on the employer. The relevant rules
regarding attributability and aggravation continue to hold that if cause of
disability is unknown, and presumption of attributability is not rebutted,
then the disability is attributable to service. Rule 7 of the Entitlement
Rules, 2008 read with Rule 423 of the RMSAF, 2010 continue to generate
a reasonable benefit of doubt in favour of the service member.
xxx xxx xxx
31.1. The aforementioned High Court judgments in Bhaskaran, Anil
Madso and Col. Balbir Singh converge with our opinion that even though
Entitlement Rules, 2008 removed the automatic presumption and
strengthened the requirement of causal nexus, they did not dismantle the
claimant-protective structure of the Rules, particularly the continued
allocation of primary burden to the establishment and beneficial
principles governing attributability, aggravation and reasonable
doubt. Bhaskaran reaches the same conclusion that the onus of proof is
similar, with a minor caveat (reversal of onus in belated claims), and,
that attributability/aggravation to military service can be established
through causal connection, which, in our opinion, existed in Entitlement
Rules, 1982 as well. Anil Madso recognises that the Entitlement Rules,
2008 removed the earlier presumption under Rule 5, but still holds that
this did not automatically shift the burden of establishing entitlement onto
the claimant, since Rule 7 continues to place the initial burden on the
establishment.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:30.10.2026
18:07:30
W.P.(C) 14867/2026 Page 7 of 10


11. In Dharamvir Singh (supra) , the Supreme Court referred to Rules 4,
5, 9 and 14 of the Entitlement Rules, 1982 and elucidated certain guiding
factors which are 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
Pensions), 2002 — “Entitlement: General Principles”, including
Paras 7, 8 and 9 as referred to above (para 27).”

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:30.10.2026
18:07:30
W.P.(C) 14867/2026 Page 8 of 10


12. Following this judgment, Division Bench of this Court in Manvir
Singh v. Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9195 , held that
the disability of the Petitioner therein ‘Bipolar Affective Disorder’ had
arisen during the course of service and in the absence of any reasons
recorded by the Medical Board regarding attributability or aggravation, the
disability has to be treated as having arisen as a result of his service
conditions and directed the Respondents to grant him disability pension.
13. Coming back to the instant case, the IMB held on 24.08.2024 noted
that the Petitioner was suffering from ‘Severe Depressive Disorder with
Deliberate Self Harm (DSH)- attempted suicide by hanging from a ceiling
fan’ since 2022 and was in Low Medical Category since then and that even
after adequate treatment, there was no improvement in the symptoms, owing
to which he was placed in category S5 with effect from 14.03.2024 and
declared ‘Unfit for Service’. Basis this the IMB opined that Petitioner’s
further stay in the service will be detrimental to the service and
recommended his invalidation. There is no annotation in the Medical
Board’s proceedings regarding attributability or aggravation of Petitioner’s
disability and in light of the aforesaid judgments, we have no hesitation in
holding that sans any note in the record of the Petitioner that he was
suffering from any illness or disease at the time of his enrolment, the
disability incurred by the Petitioner has to be treated as a result of his service
conditions and therefore, the pre-condition of OM dated 21.04.2011 stands
satisfied. Petitioner is accordingly held entitled to ex-gratia compensation in
terms of OMs dated 21.04.2011 and 07.06.2017.
14. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and Respondents are
directed to grant ex-gratia compensation to the Petitioner in terms of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:30.10.2026
18:07:30
W.P.(C) 14867/2026 Page 9 of 10


aforesaid OMs, within a period of three months from today, failing which
the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum, till date of actual
payment.
15. Writ petition stands disposed of.


JYOTI SINGH, J

GURVINDER PAL SINGH, J
OCTOBER 12, 2026/ vs

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:30.10.2026
18:07:30
W.P.(C) 14867/2026 Page 10 of 10