Disability Boarding Out: Mental Illness Not Established at Recruitment Presumed Attributable to Service and Pensionable

The petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the Border Security Force (BSF) in 2011 after being declared medically fit

After serving for over five years, a Medical Board diagnosed him with schizophrenia and classified him under a specific medical category, leading to his discharge from service on January 15, 2018, as "unfit"

His application and subsequent appeal for a disability pension were rejected by the authorities on the grounds that his condition was not attributable to government service and that he lacked the ten years of qualifying service required for a standard pension

The petitioner challenged these orders, arguing his illness arose from strenuous service conditions

1. Whether the petitioner’s mental illness, diagnosed years after recruitment, can be considered attributable to government service for the purpose of granting a disability pension

2. Whether the lack of ten years of service precludes an individual from receiving disability benefits when boarded out on medical grounds

The court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding writ jurisdiction.

Rule 42 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (applicable to similar paramilitary forces), and the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which govern disability and invalidation benefits

the precedent established in Sant Kumar v. Union of India (W.P. No. 507/2003), which holds that if an individual is found fit at recruitment, a subsequent diagnosis of schizophrenia is presumed attributable to service unless the state provides scientific evidence of a pre-existing condition

The court observed that the petitioner entered service in a healthy state, as confirmed by his initial medical clearance

It rejected the respondents' claim that the illness was pre-existing, noting that the authorities failed to produce any scientific or documentary evidence to prove the petitioner suffered from schizophrenia prior to 2011

Citing the Sant Kumar precedent, the court reasoned that the onset of mental health issues after years of service in high-pressure environments must be treated as arising out of employment

The court found the appellate order to be non-speaking and unreasoned, failing to address why the expert medical board's findings would override the initial fitness certification without contemporary evidence

It held that the petitioner is entitled to a disability pension regardless of the ten-year service threshold because the disability is deemed attributable to service

The respondents were directed to pass a fresh reasoned order within six months, grant notional fixation of pension from the date of entitlement, and pay all arrears from the date of discharge (January 15, 2018)

No order was made as to costs