'Can't abandon soldier who shed blood': Court grants BSF veteran disability pension

The man claimed that he retired in 2009 and was granted only an ordinary pension, despite having suffered a gunshot injury that left him with a disability assessed at 45 per cent.

A welfare state cannot "abandon" a soldier who "shed blood" while defending the nation against militant attacks, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has said. The court directed the Border Security Force (BSF) to treat the former constable as having been retired on medical grounds and grant him disability pension.

The constable was shot in his right arm when militants attacked a BSF vehicle in 1991. The injury left him with a permanent disability. Despite this, he continued to serve for over 21 years before retiring in 2009. However, the authorities rejected his claim for disability pension.

Justice Pravindra Singh Chauhan said the state should recognise the efforts of military personnel through "special pensionary provisions". He added that giving such benefits does not "diminish" the rights of other citizens. Instead, it reflects the state's responsibility towards those who suffer disabling injuries while performing "hazardous public duties".

"A welfare state cannot abandon a soldier who shed blood in defence of the Nation against militant operations. Personnel engaged in protecting the country and its citizens undertake risks which the law recognises through special pensionary provisions," the October 28 order read.

Injured in 1991, served for 21 years

The man joined the BSF as a constable in 1988. In December 1991, while performing internal security duty at Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, he sustained a gunshot injury on his right arm during a militant attack on the BSF vehicle in which he was travelling with other personnel. He was hospitalised until February 1992 and later underwent further treatment till July 1992.

The man added that although his condition improved, the injury resulted in a continuing deformity of his right arm and later his disability was assessed as 45 per cent in 1996 by the medical boards.

In 1998, he requested disability compensation but allegedly received Rs 12,412 as lump-sum compensation for the injury attributable to government service. He later continued in service while remaining in low medical categories.

The said order recorded the medical findings but rejected disability pension by relying upon voluntary retirement and earlier compensation.

In 2009, the medical board again assessed his disability and certified that he was completely and permanently incapacitated for any kind of further service in BSF. After this, the man submitted a retirement request on the assurance that his case would be processed for medical boarding out.

Lastly, the man retired from service in November 2009, having rendered 21 years, 7 months and 29 days of qualifying service, with ordinary pension. He had been accordingly receiving Rs 15,500 as pension. In 2018, he served a legal notice seeking disability pension, but the same was rejected on the grounds that he had voluntarily retired and had already received lump-sum disability compensation.

Aggrieved, he moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court with this plea.

Arguments

The man was represented through advocate Chanderhas Yadav, who submitted that the communication itself recorded the circumstances of the terrorist attack and the assessment of 45 per cent disability. It was further argued that on the assurance that his case would be processed for medical boarding out, the man submitted a retirement request, but he was deprived of disability pension.

Representing the state, senior panel counsel Pankaj Gupta argued that the man is not entitled to disability pension when he had already received lump-sum compensation and ultimately proceeded on voluntary retirement. He submitted that they have acted in accordance with the applicable rules and that no fundamental or legal right of the man has been infringed.

'Lasting physical burden'

The court said the man suffered the disability after being shot while performing official duties during a militant attack. It observed, "It represents a lasting physical burden borne in the service of public safety and national security".

The court further noted that the man continued working for years despite his injury. The BSF's own medical board eventually found him permanently unfit for further service.

The court said the injury was caused by militant violence while the man was on duty. Therefore, his disability had to be assessed under the rules applicable to such injuries, and not treated like a disability caused by ordinary natural conditions.

"Payment of ordinary retirement benefits cannot be treated as a complete answer where an independently admissible disability benefit remains unpaid," it added.

The court directed the authorities to treat the man as having been retired on medical grounds from November 2009, taking into account the review medical board's finding of 45 per cent permanent disability, and grant him disability pension accordingly.