If A Soldier Is Retained Despite Disability, He Must Be Paid Compensation: Delhi High Court Grants Relief To BSF Officer Injured In Line Of Duty

“Disability Attributable To Service—Entitlement Cannot Be Denied Simply Because The Soldier Retired, Not Boarded Out”, Delhi High Court delivered a significant judgment recognizing the right of a retired Border Security Force (BSF) officer to receive compensation for a permanent disability sustained while actively engaged in anti-militancy operations. The Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur held that the officer’s disability was attributable to service and directed the Central Government to pay compensation with interest.

Jagtar Singh, enrolled in the BSF in 1966 and promoted through the ranks to Sub-Inspector, suffered a gunshot wound to the face during cordon and search duties in Sopore, Jammu & Kashmir, in December 1993. The injury led to the evisceration of his left eye and permanent loss of vision, resulting in a 30% disability. For his bravery, he was awarded the Police Medal for Gallantry in 1995.

Despite being assessed as having a permanent disability, Singh was retained in service until his superannuation on September 30, 2005. He was never invalidated or boarded out of service due to his condition. He later approached the High Court seeking disability pension under Rule 3-A of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1972 (CCS EOP Rules).

The principal legal questions were:

1. Whether a government servant who suffers permanent disability attributable to service, but is not boarded out, is entitled to disability pension or compensation?

2. Whether delay in filing such a claim after retirement bars relief?

The Court held that once disability attributable to service is medically certified, the entitlement to compensation is automatic—even if the individual is not invalidated from service.

“The petitioner meets the eligibility criteria for the injury to be considered as a disablement under Rule 3-A of the CCS (EOP) Rules and, thus, becomes eligible for the grant of disability pension under Rule 9,” the Bench held.

It rejected the government’s argument that Singh was not eligible because he was not boarded out, invoking Rule 9(3), which provides for lump sum compensation to a disabled soldier retained in service:

“As per Rule 9(3), if the Government servant is retained in service in spite of such disablement, he shall be paid compensation in lump sum (in lieu of disability pension),” the Court clarified.

Delay Does Not Defeat Disability Claims

The Union Government also sought dismissal on the ground of delay, arguing that Singh filed the petition nearly 14 years after retirement. The Court dismissed this contention relying on Supreme Court precedents:

“In a case like this it would be a continuous cause of action... the appellant would be entitled to receive the same every month,” the Court noted quoting Ex-Sep Chain Singh v. Union of India.

Citing Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, the Bench reiterated that pension claims are not barred by delay as they involve a continuing wrong.

Finding that Singh’s disability was service-related and that he was unjustly denied due benefits, the Court ordered:

• Compensation in lieu of disability pension under Rule 9(3) of the CCS (EOP) Rules.

• Payment within three months.

• Interest at 6% from the date of accrual till realization.

“The respondents are hereby directed to assess the amount of compensation... and release the same within three months from today,” the Court ordered, granting the long-delayed relief.

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed the principle that a disability attributable to military or paramilitary service commands rightful compensation under the law. The case underscores the duty of the State to honor sacrifices made by personnel injured in the line of duty and not deny them their lawful dues based on procedural technicalities like retirement status or delay.

Date of Decision: May 19, 2025