Kataka: The Orissa High Court has quashed a 2011 order rejecting disability pension to a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel who retired from the force in 1999 after being diagnosed with schizophrenia.
While the personnel had been assured 50% disability pension while retiring, the benefit was revoked on grounds that schizophrenia was non-classified and he had not served for 10 years.
The Court has now directed the CRPF to restore the pension and release the arrears.
“Taking into account the nature of the order passed and the grounds of rejection issued, this court is of the view that since the petitioner was allowed to take retirement on the ground of invalidation because of his…schizophrenia, on the ground that such a disease is not a classified disease, the petitioner’s claim could not have been rejected,” Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy observed, as reported by The Indian Express.
Since it was clearly indicated in the order that the petitioner is entitled to get the disability pension of 50 per cent and the said order since was never modified or recalled, this court is of the view that the ground on which the petitioner’s claim was rejected is not sustainable in the eyes of the law, the order said.
The petitioner was allowed to retire on medical invalidation in 1999 after he was found to have schizophrenia. The medical board had found him completely and permanently incapacitated for future service and recommended disability pension of 50 per cent.
The CRPF’s order allowing his invalidation retirement also specifically stated that he would be entitled to the pension from the date of invalidation.
His claim for disability pension was later rejected in 2011. The authorities said schizophrenia was not a classified disease for the purpose of Extraordinary Disability Pension (EOP) under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and that he had not completed the required 10 years of qualifying service. He was told he was only entitled to service gratuity, which had already been paid.
The retired CRPF personnel then challenged the rejection before the High Court, seeking quashing of the 2011 order and release of his disability pension.
The petitioner was allowed to retire on medical invalidation because of schizophrenia, based on the medical board’s assessment that he was permanently incapacitated for further service, the Court noted. The 1999 retirement order specifically stated that he was entitled to 50 per cent disability pension from the date of invalidation.
The original retirement order had never been modified or recalled, the Court observed. Therefore, the subsequent rejection of the pension claim was not sustainable in law and was also hit by the principle of promissory estoppel, a legal principle that allows a court to enforce a promise even when there is no formal, written contract.
