Fit At Enrolment, BSF Constable Invalidated For Schizophrenia Gets Ex-Gratia Despite Board’s No-Service-Link Finding: Delhi HC

The petitioner joined the BSF in 2007 after being found medically fit, with no recorded pre-existing disease or disability.

In 2022, a Medical Board diagnosed him with Paranoid Schizophrenia, assessed his disability at 45%, and found him unfit for further service.

He was invalidated from service with effect from 20 March 2023 and granted invalid pension, but neither disability pension nor ex-gratia compensation.

The respondents denied ex-gratia compensation on the basis that the Medical Board had found the disability neither attributable to nor aggravated by service.

The petitioner sought compensation under the Office Memorandums (OMs) dated 21 April 2011 and 7 June 2017.

The OM dated 21 April 2011 provides ex-gratia compensation to CAPF personnel boarded out on account of disability attributable to or aggravated by service; compensation is proportionate to the degree of disability. The OM dated 7 June 2017 revised the amount payable for 100% disability to Rs. 20 lakhs with effect from 1 January 2016, with proportionate compensation for lesser disability.

In Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 316, the Supreme Court held that, absent a record of pre-existing illness at entry, a person is presumed to have entered service in sound health; where the person is later discharged on medical grounds, the employer bears the burden of showing that the deterioration was not due to service.

The Court also relied on Union of India v. Col. N.C. Isaac (Retd.), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1895, and Shatrughana Pingua v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9975, in applying that presumption and assessing the effect of a Medical Board’s opinion.

The petitioner had entered BSF service medically fit, with no record of pre-existing illness, and was invalidated after developing the diagnosed condition during service.

Applying Dharamvir Singh and the subsequent authorities, the Court held that the respondents bore the burden of establishing that the disability was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service. They had not discharged that burden.

The Court further considered that the disability had been contracted in service and that the Medical Board’s opinion, without an identified alternative cause, was insufficient to rebut the presumption. It therefore treated the OM’s service-attribution or aggravation requirement as satisfied.

If payment was not made within that period, the arrears would carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of invalidation until payment. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.