HAWALDAR FERY YADAV v. UNIOF OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
Prohibition of Dual Standards in Disability Assessment for Discharge and Pensionary Benefits and Limitation on Arrears in Continuous Cause of Action.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:7494-DB
Decision Date: 24-03-2026
List of Laws
Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1972; Indian Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986; Regulations for the Medical Services of the Armed Forces, 1983; Service Law - Disability Pension and Continuous Cause of Action
- Facts: The Petitioner, a Navik in the Indian Coast Guard, was diagnosed with Pulmonary Tuberculosis (Relapse) in 2007. An Invalidation Medical Board (IMB) certified him with 100% disability for one year, noting the condition was "capable of improvement". Consequently, the Respondents discharged him from service on 7 July 2008 on medical grounds. While he initially received a disability pension based on 100% disability, he was subjected to a Re-survey Medical Board (RMB) in July 2009. The RMB reduced his disability assessment to 15-19% for life, leading the Respondents to reduce his disability pension from 30% to 15% of his last basic pay. The Petitioner challenged this reduction and the adequacy of insurance benefits paid under the Naval Group Insurance Fund (NGIF).
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioner approached the Bombay High Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in 2019, approximately ten years after the reduction of his pension.
- Issue: Whether the Respondents can validly apply two different standards of disability assessment—100% disability from the IMB for the purpose of discharging the employee from service, and a reduced 15-19% disability from a subsequent RMB for the purpose of calculating pensionary and insurance benefits?
- Holding: No, the reduction of the disability pension based on the RMB is illegal. The Court held that the Respondents cannot rely on 100% disability to terminate service while simultaneously using a lower assessment to deny full pensionary benefits.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that if the Respondents believed the Petitioner’s condition was "capable of improvement", they should have waited for the expiry of the one-year period and conducted an RMB before deciding on his discharge. By "hurriedly" discharging him based on the 100% disability report, they committed to that assessment for the purpose of his exit from service. Applying a lower standard thereafter for financial benefits was deemed arbitrary and "objectionable". Regarding the delay in filing, the Court applied the principle that the payment of pension is a "continuous cause of action"; however, following the precedents of "M.R. Gupta v. Union of India" and "Union of India v. Tarsem Singh", it restricted the recovery of arrears to a period of three years prior to the filing of the petition.
🔒 For Members Only