ARJUN SINGH Vs. UOI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by a Constable who was boarded out from the services of Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (for short 'Force') on medical grounds after he had served the force for 13 years and 4 months. He was sanctioned invalid pension, but was not paid disability pension which the petitioner claims is payable to him in terms of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules (for short 'Rules').

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner in this petition is that he was enrolled in the force on 01.01.1991 after he was found fit on all respects. He was, however, discharged from the Force on 03.04.2004 on medical grounds. It is claimed that the petitioner at the time of his recruitment in the force and few years thereafter remained hale and hearty, but, later on, fell sick due to stress and strain of the duty. He was examined by the Medical Board and was diagnosed as a patient of "Psychoneurosis (Bipolar Affective Disorder) Manic Depressive Psychosis with Alcohol abuse". In the light of the opinion of the Medical Board, the petitioner was served with show cause notice and was eventually discharged from the force w.e.f 03.04.04 on the ground that due to the ailment which the petitioner was suffering from, he was not fit to perform his duty. The petitioner claims to have served the force for more than 13 years. The respondents did sanction in his favour invalid pension to the tune of Rs. 1,913/- w.e.f. 01.05.04, but had declined to grant him the disability pension as provided under the Rules. This, in nutshell, is the grievance projected by the petitioner in this petition.

(3.) The respondents have filed their objections and have taken a stand that the petitioner was discharged from the service on medical grounds and because of the petitioner?s suffering from Psychoneurosis (Bipolar Affective Disorder) Manic Depressive Psychosis with Alcohol abuse", which, disease, as per the opinion of the Medical Board, was neither attributable or aggravated by the service conditions. It is, thus, submitted that the petitioner was only found entitled to invalid pension which was sanctioned in his favour vide Sanction Order dated 18th August 2004.