The Presumptive Attributability Principle for Disability Pension: Kuldeep Singh v. Director General CRPF

1. Introduction

The judgment in Kuldeep Singh v. Director General CRPF and Ors., decided by the Delhi High Court on January 7, 2025, addresses the critical issue of attributing disability to service conditions for personnel serving in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The petitioner, Kuldeep Singh, sought the grant of Disability Pension after being invalidated from service due to an eye ailment that arose during his service.

When Kuldeep Singh joined the CRPF as a Constable/Driver, he was declared medically fit. Over the course of his service, he developed a “Corneal Ulcer” in his left eye, later diagnosed as “Corneal Opacity with failed penetrating keratoplasty.” Despite repeated examinations and treatments, his eye condition did not improve, and he was invalidated out of service. Crucially, the Medical Board did not explicitly state whether this ailment was attributable to or aggravated by his service conditions—a pivotal factor in determining whether a Disability Pension would be awarded.

Hence, the principal legal question before the Court was whether, in the absence of explicit reasons detailing that the disease was neither attributable to nor aggravated by service, Kuldeep Singh should nonetheless be granted Disability Pension. This judgment departs significantly from the mere procedural stance of invalidation to a substantive legal principle on how to interpret disability attribution.

2. Summary of the Judgment

After considering the factual matrix, the medical evaluations, and multiple precedents, the Delhi High Court concluded the following:

1. No Express Reasons for Non-Attributability: The Court noted that neither the Medical Board’s proceedings nor the invalidation order provided any reason to conclude that the petitioner’s disability was not service-related.
2. Application of Benefit of Doubt: By invoking Rule 2 of the Guidelines for Conceding Attributability of Disablement/Death to Government Service under the Central Civil Service (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, the Court emphasized that the benefit of doubt must be granted to service personnel where no specific cause for non-attributability is shown.
3. Disability Pension Granted with Broad-Banding: Reiterating broader judicial pronouncements, the Court awarded Disability Pension based on a 40% disability and rounded it up to 50% in accordance with the government’s broad-banding rules. The Court directed that arrears be paid from three years prior to the filing of the petition.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The Court relied on several key precedents and compared them with its reasoning in the present case:

• Mohan Lal vs Union of India & Anr. (2018 SCC OnLine Del 11948): The High Court underscored the importance of a Medical Board’s clear determination on whether a disability is attributable to or aggravated by service. In Mohan Lal, where no specific reasons were provided to the contrary, disability was presumed to have arisen due to service.
• Manvir Singh vs Union of India (W.P.(C) 11442/2016, decided on 02.12.2024): Reinforced the same principle, giving the benefit of doubt to personnel invalidated out of service when the disability manifested during their service period.
• State of Jharkhand & Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (2013) 12 SCC 210: Although more focused on pension rights generally, this Supreme Court decision underlined that pensionary benefits should not be withheld arbitrarily and that they form a constitutionally protected right.
• Union of India & Anr. vs Rajbir Singh (2015) 12 SCC 264: This Supreme Court case reiterated the stance that if a disability arises in the course of service and no reason is stated to show its pre-existence, a presumption of attributability or aggravation by service is warranted.
• Prahallad Mohanty vs Union of India & Ors. (Orissa High Court, W.P.(C) 28470/2013, decided on 05.10.2016): Echoed the principle that, absent a clear explanation otherwise, the onset of the disability during service is attributable to, or aggravated by, the nature of duties performed.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning centered around the principle of presumed attributability. It emphasized that when a service member was declared medically fit at the time of recruitment and subsequently developed a disabling condition during service, it is incumbent upon the authorities to provide explicit reasons if they believe the disability is not attributable to or aggravated by service conditions. In the absence of any such concluding remarks by the Medical Board or the employer, the law mandates that the benefit of doubt be extended in favor of the individual.

Rule 2 of the Guidelines for Conceding Attributability or Aggravation (under the CCS (EOP) Rules) also played a significant role. It specifically instructs that “the benefit of reasonable doubt” be given to claimants, especially those in active field service. Hence, the onus rested on the respondents to demonstrate any contrary facts or reasons—a burden that was not discharged.

Additionally, the Court applied the concept of broad-banding, as reflected in the Government of India’s decisions. Under this principle, disabilities assessed at less than 50% are rounded up to 50%. Thus, although the petitioner’s disability was pegged at 40%, he was entitled to be treated as having a 50% disabled status for pension computation.

3.3 Impact

This judgment clarifies and strengthens the Presumptive Attributability Principle, wherein any disease or disability arising during the period of service creates a strong presumption of service-related causation or aggravation. Its impact may be felt in multiple ways:

• Guidance for Future Litigants and Courts: Serves as a confirmed precedent that calls upon government authorities and Medical Boards to meticulously record reasons for non-attributability, failing which the presumption will work in favor of the invalidated personnel.
• Administrative Implications for Armed and Paramilitary Forces: May lead to a more rigorous and transparent approach in the compilation of Medical Board reports. The authorities might now ensure each case includes detailed reasons when rejecting disability claims.
• Financial and Policy Consequences: Could influence the approach of various central and state agencies in reviewing and approving Disability Pension claims, potentially broadening the pool of beneficiaries.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

“Attributability” vs. “Aggravation”: If a disability arises solely because of service conditions, it is said to be attributable to service. Where the disease might have existed beforehand or be congenital, but is worsened due to the nature of duties, it is said to be aggravated by service. Under the rules and judicial pronouncements, in both cases, the individual may be entitled to disability benefits if no specific reason is given to prove the contrary.

“Benefit of Reasonable Doubt”: This principle ensures that if there is any uncertainty regarding the origin or aggravation of a disability, the doubt is resolved in favor of the service member. This was applied here since the Medical Board did not record any finding that contradicted a possible service connection.

“Broad-Banding”: In calculating disability pension, broad-banding is a method that rounds up the disability percentage to the nearest accepted benchmark. For instance, a disability of 40% is deemed 50% for pension computation. This is intended to simplify computations and ensure consistency in benefits.

“Invalidation Pension” vs. “Disability Pension”: While invalidation pension compensates a member who is prematurely retired without necessarily attributing the condition to service, disability pension is specifically designed to recognize service-related aggravation or development of the condition, offering enhanced benefits.

5. Conclusion

The Kuldeep Singh v. Director General CRPF and Ors. judgment fortifies the legal principle that where a medical condition arises during service, it must be presumed to be attributable to or aggravated by service unless there is an express and reasoned conclusion otherwise. The Court’s directives to grant Disability Pension and to broad-band the disability rate to 50% reiterate both compassion and adherence to well-established statutory and case law precedents.

Not only does this decision bring relief to the petitioner, but it also carries broader implications for other service personnel in similar situations. By firmly placing the burden on the authorities to show that a disability is not related to service conditions, this judgment affirms the principle that protecting the rights of paramilitary forces and armed forces personnel is paramount. Ultimately, the “Presumptive Attributability Principle” ensures fairness and recognizes the risks that such personnel undertake during their service to the nation.