Disability pension must correspond to the disability percentage used to justify medical invalidation discharge.

The Petitioner was appointed as a Navik in the Indian Coast Guard in 1992

In 2007, following a relapse of Pulmonary Tuberculosis, an Invalidation Medical Board (IMB) certified him with 100% disability for one year, noting the condition was "capable of improvement"

Despite recommendations from his unit to retain him in a lower medical category, the Respondents discharged him on medical grounds on July 7, 2008, under Rule 26 of the Indian Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986

Initially, he received an invalid pension (50% of basic pay) and a disability element (30% of basic pay for 100% disability)

However, following a Re-survey Medical Board (RMB) on July 29, 2009, his disability was reduced to 15-19%, leading the Respondents to reduce his disability pension to 15% of his basic pay

The Petitioner challenged this reduction and the adequacy of his insurance payout under the Naval Group Insurance Fund (NGIF) in 2019

Rule 26 of the Indian Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986, and Rule 38 of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1972, which govern medical invalidation and the calculation of invalid and disability pensions

Para-24, Chapter-VII of GMO-MP-02 regarding the assessment of disabilities "capable of improvement"

Principles established in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, which hold that while pension claims constitute a "continuous cause of action" that overcomes delay, the recovery of arrears must be restricted to a period of three years prior to the filing of the petition.

The Court observed that the Respondents adopted an inconsistent and arbitrary standard by using the IMB’s 100% disability finding to justify the Petitioner's medical discharge but then utilizing a lower RMB assessment to minimize financial liability

The Court found that if the Respondents deemed the Petitioner "capable of improvement," they should have waited for the one-year period specified by the IMB and conducted the RMB before discharging him

By hurriedly discharging him and later reducing his benefits based on a post-discharge reassessment, the Respondents acted illegally

On the issue of delay, the Court held that because the payment of a reduced pension occurs monthly, it constitutes a continuous wrong

Consequently, while the Petitioner’s right to a higher pension was upheld, his claim for back-dated arrears was limited to three years preceding the petition's filing to balance the delay

The Respondents must refix the Petitioner's disability pension based on the initial 100% disability certification (i.e., 30% of basic pay)

The Respondents were directed to pay arrears of the difference in pension, restricted to the three years prior to the filing of the petition

The Respondents were ordered to redetermine and pay the difference in the NGIF insurance amount based on 100% disability

All payments must be cleared within eight weeks