Prem Kumar Panday vs Union Of India & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 12 October, 2026

# CNR No. DLHC010484242026
+ W.P.(C) 14853/2026
PREM KUMAR PANDAY .....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.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr.
Nitin Kumar, GP.
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 9% interest p.a. from 05.01.2025, when Petitioner was invalidated from
service.
2. Case of the Petitioner as pleaded is that Petitioner was appointed as
Constable (GD) in BSF after being declared completely medically fit in all
respects upon clearing the Detailed Medical Examination and had no pre-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
W.P.(C) 14853/2026 Page 1 of 6


existing disease or disability. While serving in BSF, Petitioner suffered from
‘Bipolar Affective Disorder with psychotic features and Obesity’ and the
Medical Board rendered a finding on 20.07.2024 that Petitioner was a case
of 48% permanent disability and opined that the disability though not
attributable to service but was aggravated by stress and strain of service. On
20.09.2024, Commandant 154 BN BSF issued show cause notice to the
Petitioner under Rule 25 of BSF Rules, 1969 informing the Petitioner that
the Medical Board had found him suffering from ‘Bipolar Affective
Disorder with psychotic features and Obesity’ and the recommended
medical category was S5H1A1P2E1 and therefore, Petitioner was unfit for
further service in BSF and calling upon him to reply to the notice. By order
dated 20.12.2024, Petitioner was invalidated from service on ground of
physical unfitness with all pensionary benefits as admissible.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner is entitled to
ex-gratia compensation in light of the opinion of the Medical Board
diagnosing the Petitioner with ‘Bipolar Affective Disorder with psychotic
features and Obesity’ and assessing the disability at 48%, basis which
Petitioner was invalidated from service. It is urged that having accepted the
Medical Board’s opinion, it was not open to Respondents to deny the ex-
gratia payment in terms of OMs dated 21.04.2011 and 07.06.2017 as also
that case of the Petitioner is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court in Kalu Ram v. Union of India and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine
Del 9748.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondents fairly and candidly does not
dispute that the case of the Petitioner is covered by the OMs as also the
judgment in Kalu Ram (supra).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
W.P.(C) 14853/2026 Page 2 of 6


5. In the instant case, Petitioner was appointed in BSF in 2008 as
Constable (GD) after he was declared medically fit in all respects. While
serving, Petitioner was diagnosed with ‘Bipolar Affective Disorder with
psychotic features and Obesity’ vide Medical Board’s opinion dated
20.07.2024 and disability was assessed as permanent and 48%. Show cause
notice was issued to the Petitioner on 20.09.2024, calling upon him to show
cause why he should not be invalidated from service on ground of medical
unfitness and finally, vide order dated 20.12.2024, Petitioner was invalidated
from BSF service.
6. Significantly, Medical Board found that the disability was contracted
in service and aggravated due to stress and strain of service albeit not
attributable to conditions of service. The opinion has been admittedly
accepted by the Respondents as this forms the basis of Petitioner’s
invalidation from service and therefore, Respondents can neither dispute the
disability or its percentage nor the fact that it was aggravated due to stress
and strain of BSF service. For ready reference, opinion of the Medical Board
is as follows:-
“ PART-II OF MEDICAL BOARD PROCEEDINGS
No. 80027203 Rank CT/GD Name Prem Kumar Pandey of 154 BN BSF
1. Findings of the Board in brief (if different from the findings mentioned
in part -1): NIL
2. Opinion of the board:-
The Board having examined No. 080027203 Rank CT/GD Name Prem
Kumar Pandey of 154 BN BSF is of the opinion that he is suffering from
"Bipolar Affective Disorder with psychotic features and Obesity” and is
considered UNFIT for further service in BSF.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
W.P.(C) 14853/2026 Page 3 of 6



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
W.P.(C) 14853/2026 Page 4 of 6


7. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India issued OM dated
21.04.2011 which stipulated that CAPFs personnel, who are disabled in the
performance of their bona fide official duties under various circumstances
and are boarded out from service on account of disability attributable to or
aggravated by service, shall be paid ex-gratia compensation amounting to
Rs.9 lakhs for 100% disability and for cases with lesser percentage, the
amount may be reduced in proportion to the degree of disability. By OM
dated 07.06.2017, the amount of compensation of Rs. 9 lakhs was revised to
Rs.20 lakhs with effect from 01.01.2016 for 100% disability on the basis of
th
7 CPC recommendations and for cases for lesser disability, the amount of
compensation was reduced in proportion to the degree of disability. In Kalu
Ram (supra), placing reliance on the two OMs as also the opinion of the
Release Medical Board which diagnosed the disability of the Petitioner as
Severe Depressive Disorder with Psychotic Symptoms and assessed the
same as 40% permanent, the Division Bench held that Petitioner was
entitled to ex-gratia compensation and observed that despite the opinion of
the Medical Board being in favor of the Petitioner, he was unnecessarily
made to litigate. In this context, we may allude to the judgment of another
Division Bench in Hari Prakash v. Union of India and Others, 2026 SCC
OnLine Del 2256.
8. We are of the considered view that Petitioner is entitled to ex-gratia
compensation in terms of OMs dated 21.04.2011 and 07.06.2017, in light of
the opinion of the Medical Board diagnosing his disability as ‘Bipolar
Affective Disorder with psychotic features and Obesity’, basis which he was
invalidated out and the finding that the disability was aggravated by stress
and strain of service. Case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:23.10.2026
17:56:23
W.P.(C) 14853/2026 Page 5 of 6


judgments in Kalu Ram (supra) and Hari Prakash (supra).
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, directing Respondents No.2
and 3 to disburse the ex-gratia compensation to the Petitioner in terms of
OMs dated 21.04.2011 and 07.06.2017 within eight weeks from today,
failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of
discharge till date of actual payment.

10. 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:23.10.2026
17:56:23
W.P.(C) 14853/2026 Page 6 of 6