BSF Constable Discharged With Bipolar Disorder Gets 70% Lifetime Disability Pension After Delhi HC Finds It Arose In Service

The petitioner entered BSF service as a Constable (GD) in 2008 and was medically fit at entry. From 2012, he experienced psychiatric symptoms and was later placed in a low medical category.

A Medical Board assessed him as having Bipolar Mood Disorder and 70% permanent disability; he was discharged on medical grounds with effect from 30 November 2021, but denied disability pension and related benefits.

He petitioned under Article 226 seeking disability pension and other relief. The respondents opposed the claim, relying on the Medical Board’s view that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service and was not listed in Schedule 1-A of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939.

Rule 9(1) of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 provides for disability pension where disablement is conceded as due to government service.

Applying the principles in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, 2013 SCC OnLine SC 538, and Union of India v. Rajbir Singh, (2015) 12 SCC 264, the Court held that a person entering service without a recorded disability is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition; where the person is later discharged on medical grounds, deterioration is presumed to have arisen in service, and the employer bears the burden of rebutting attribution or aggravation with reasons. The beneficial pension provisions are to be interpreted liberally.

The Court also relied on Shatrughana Pingua v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9975, for the principle that a bare Medical Board opinion denying attribution, without identifying a contrary factor, is insufficient where the disability is admitted to have been contracted in service.

The parties did not dispute that the petitioner was medically fit on entry or that Bipolar Mood Disorder arose during his BSF service.

The Medical Board’s conclusion that the condition was not attributable to or aggravated by service did not, without supporting reasons, rebut the presumption arising from his fitness at entry and subsequent medical discharge.

The Court noted that the Board had found the disability contracted in service and applied the principles in Dharamvir Singh, Rajbir Singh and Shatrughana Pingua. It therefore rejected the respondents’ reliance on the Board’s opinion and on the condition’s alleged absence from Schedule 1-A.

The petitioner was permitted to make a representation concerning the other reliefs claimed; the respondents were directed to decide it within six weeks of receipt.