Delhi High Court Raps Centre For Not Granting Disability Compensation To BSF DIG Who Suffered Hearing Loss In 2001 IED Blast

The Delhi High Court has granted disability compensation to a man who superannuated from the Border Security Force (BSF) as a Deputy Inspector General (DIG) for 42% hearing loss suffered by him in an IED blast in Jammu and Kashmir in 2001.

A division bench comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla questioned the authorities as to why they could not have released disability compensation to the man, Ashvini Kumar Sharma, who made repeated communications to them.

“The petitioner cannot be expected to approach the respondents with a begging bowl, asking for his due entitlement under the Rules. It was for the respondents, in fact, to have released the petitioner's dues on coming to learn of the fact that the petitioner had actually suffered disability which was attributable to the injury borne by him in 2001,” the Court said.

It held that Sharma was entitled to disability compensation in terms of Rule 9(3) of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939.

It directed that the compensation be released to him with effect from the date of issuance of the Suitability Certificate dated September 27, 2017, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, till the date when the disability compensation was released to Sharma.

“Given the manner in which the petitioner has had to suffer despite the injury that he bore in 2001, we would have been inclined to award punitive costs in this case. However, as we have awarded interest on the disability compensation granted by us, we refrain from doing so,” it said.

The Bench allowed Sharma's plea challenging the order rejecting his claim for disability compensation in December 2022.

Sharma applied for disability compensation after the medical board assessed him as suffering from Mild to Moderate Bilateral Hearing Loss with 42% disability in 2017.

Observing that the manner in which Sharma's claim was dealt with by the authorities was a matter of concern, the Court said:

“We do not wish to second guess the reason as to why the petitioner, who was a war veteran who had suffered 42% hearing loss attributable to an injury borne by him on the warfront in 2001, has had to wait for 24 years as on date for obtaining his entitlement.”

It added that even today, the authorities were not willing to concede to Sharma'/ claim, but had gone to the extent of submitting before the Court that he was medically fit for 16 years between 2001 and 2017.

“There can be no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was retained in service for 17 years after 2001, and even after the decision of the Medical Board in 2017, till he superannuated in 2018. It was for this reason that his claim to disability compensation was in fact recommended by the highest officials,” the Court said.

“Rule 6, in our view, cannot apply in a case which falls within the meaning of Rule 9(3) of the CCS (EOP) Rules. Besides, in view of the repeated communications of the petitioner with the respondents regarding his disability, suffered due to the IED in 2001, we fail to see why the respondents could not have released disability compensation to the petitioner,” it added.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. J Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Vyas, Ms. Garima Joshi, Advs

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, SPC

Title: ASHVINI KUMAR SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1132

Click here to read order