Allowed¶65

Manjeet Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC19 Nov 2025W.P.(C)/12148/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disability pension; attributability to government service; BSF Head Constable; motor vehicle accident while returning from earned leave to duty station; private motorcycle; CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 2023; Category B(ii) Schedule III; Guideline 6(1)(a) and 6(2)(d) Schedule IV of Rule 5(3); 'on duty' meaning for Central Armed Police Battalions; travel at government expense not a precondition; Railway Warrant/LTC advance irrelevant; Court of Inquiry; Disability Medical Board; 90% permanent disability; retirement on medical grounds; invalid pension under CCS (Pension) Rules Rule 38/49; BSF Rules Rule 25(3); Article 226 judicial review; writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; petitioner held entitled to disability pension under the CCS (EOP) Rules. ¶65

Manjeet Singh Vs Union of India & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; petitioner held entitled to disability pension under the CCS (EOP) Rules.

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the disability suffered by the petitioner, resulting from a motor vehicle accident during his return to duty from his leave station, is attributable to government service under Category B(ii) in Schedule 3 read with Guideline 6(1)(a) and 6(2)(d) in Schedule IV of Rule 5(3) of the CCS (EOP) Rules.

¶44

Court's answer

Under the CCS (EOP) Rules, a government servant subject to the disciplinary code of the Central Armed Police Battalions is deemed 'on duty' when proceeding from his duty station to his leave station or returning therefrom, and under Category B(ii) of Schedule III death or disability from accidents while travelling on duty is attributable to Government service irrespective of whether the journey is by official transport or public/private conveyance; the statutory framework leaves no scope to import conditions of travel at government expense or a particular mode of transport.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner, who was travelling on his personal motorcycle from his home station to his duty station, was 'on duty' under Guideline 6(1)(a) and 6(2)(d) in Schedule IV of Rule 5(3) of the CCS (EOP) Rules as he was returning to his duty station from his leave station; consequently, the injury resulting in his permanent disability is deemed attributable to Government service.

¶57

Key takeaways

The respondents' contention that the petitioner was not 'on duty' because he was not travelling at government expense (no government transport or Railway Warrant) is contrary to the clear and unambiguous statutory provisions, which impose no condition that the mode of transport be government-funded; the rules support the petitioner's position that the injury sustained during the travel is attributable to government service.ratio¶62
Under Article 226 the writ court's scope of interference extends to correcting errors of law apparent on the face of the record or quashing decisions that disregard provisions of law; the respondents misapplied the relevant statutory provisions, justifying this Court's interference.ratio¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Disability pension – BSF Head Constable (Radio Operator) involved in motor vehicle accident on 24.02.2019 while returning from earned leave to his duty station, riding his personal motorcycle – Court of Inquiry, Commandant/DIG/IG remarks and Disability Medical Board held injuries 'not attributable to bona fide government service' solely because petitioner did not avail Railway Warrant or LTC advance – petitioner retired on medical grounds with invalid pension under Rule 38 read with Rule 49 CCS (Pension) Rules – Held: under Guideline 6(1)(a) and 6(2)(d) in Schedule IV of Rule 5(3) of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 2023, a member of the Central Armed Police Battalions is 'on duty' when proceeding from duty station to leave station or returning therefrom; read with Category B(ii) of Schedule III, accidents while travelling on duty are attributable to Government service whether in official transport or public/private conveyance – no condition of travel at government expense can be read into the statutory scheme – petitioner was 'on duty' and his permanent disability (90%) is attributable to Government service – respondents misapplied the statutory provisions, warranting interference under Article 226 – petitioner entitled to disability pension – writ petition allowed.

¶1

$~69

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 12148/2025

¶4

MANJEET SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhargava, Mr. Satyaarth Sinha, Ms. Shradha Mewatid, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC with Mr. Krishna Chaitanya GP, and Mr. Rajkumar Maurya and Mr. Divyansh Singh Dev, Advs

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

¶9

JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 19.11.2025

¶10

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

¶11

1. The present writ petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to grant disability pension. The petitioner is further seeking quashing and deletion of (i) remark dated 23.11.2021 issued by the Commandant, 178 Bn BSF, (ii) the finding dated 03.12.2021 issued by the Deputy Inspector General, IG (HQ), Force Headquarters, BSF, and (iii) the remark dated 15.01.2022 issued by the Inspector General, (HQ), Force Headquarters, BSF. By virtue of the said remarks, it was concluded that the injuries sustained by the petitioner

¶12

were not attributable to his bona-fide government service.

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Signed By:PREETI W.P.(C) 12148/2025 Signing Date:26.11.2025 17:37:51

¶15

Page 1 of 9

¶16

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the record, are that the petitioner was enrolled as a Head Constable (Radio Operator) in the Border Security Force and was granted Earned Leave from 18.02.2019 to 24.02.2019.

¶17

3. On 24.02.2019, while returning to his duty station after his leave, the petitioner was involved in a serious motor vehicle accident on the Kulan-Bhuna Road, Fatehabad, Haryana. Thereafter, he was admitted to CMC Hospital, Hisar, and was later referred to Medanta Hospital, Gurugram, due to the severity of his injuries. In connection with this incident, an FIR was lodged at Police Station Bhuna on 01.03.2019, vide FIR No. 0070, under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶18

4. Subsequently, a departmental Court of Inquiry was convened by 178 Bn BSF to examine the circumstances of the accident. According to the respondents, the COI concluded that the injuries sustained by petitioner had no causal connection with bona-fide Government duty and was therefore not attributable to service . Thereafter, the Commandant of 178 Bn BSF, agreeing with the findings of the Court of Inquiry, recorded in the remarks dated 23.11.2021, that the injuries sustained by the petitioner on 24.02.2019, while returning from six days of Earned Leave, were not attributable to bona fide government service. The Commandant’s reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioner had not availed a Railway Warrant or LTC advance for his journey from Mathura to his hometown and for his return from his hometown to the Battalion Headquarters. It was further recommended

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Signed By:PREETI W.P.(C) 12148/2025 Signing Date:26.11.2025 17:37:51

¶21

Page 2 of 9

¶22

that the petitioner be referred to a duly constituted Medical Board for an assessment of his physical and medical fitness. The impugned remarks of the Commandant of 178 Bn BSF, later endorsed by the Deputy Inspector General (HQ) BSF on 03.03.2021, and the Inspector General (HQ) BSF on 15.01.2022, are reproduced below:

¶23

“I, therefore, recommends that:-

¶24

a) As per Rule 4(b) (iv), (v) of CCS (EOP) Rules 1939 and clarification issued by DIG (HQ) FHQ, the injury sustained by Regt No. 134208914 HC (RO) Manjeet Singh. ‘Signal PI' of 178 Bn BSF is not attributable to Govt, bonafide duty as individual did not availed Railway Warrant or LTC advance for journey from Mathura to Home Town or for his return journey from Home Town to Bn HQ.

¶25

b) The individual may be produced before medical board for assessment of his I physical fitness/medical category status.”

¶26

5. The Disability Medical Board at Civil Hospital, Fatehabad, Haryana, issued a disability certificate on 13.12.2022, declaring the petitioner to be suffering from 90% permanent disability. Additionally, the petitioner was classified in a permanent low medical category, i.e., S1 H2A5(S)(U)(L) P1 E1, as per the Medical Board Proceedings dated 12.01.2024. The Medical Board also concluded that the disability was not attributable to bona fide government service and declared the petitioner unfit for further service.

¶27

6. Subsequently, the Commandant of 9 BN BSF served a show cause notice to the petitioner on 22.02.2024 under Rule 25(3) of the BSF Rules, 1969¹ , as the petitioner was considered unfit for further service. Pursuant thereto, on 19.03.2024, an order was issued by the Commandant of 9 BN BSF, ordering retirement of the petitioner from

¶28

1 “BSF Rules”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI W.P.(C) 12148/2025 Signing Date:26.11.2025 17:37:51

¶29

Page 3 of 9

¶30

service on the grounds of physical unfitness. The order also granted the petitioner the benefit of invalid pension, as admissible under Rule 38 read with Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021).

¶31

7. Aggrieved by the grant of invalidity pension only, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking the benefits of disability pension as prescribed under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 2023² .

¶32

8. Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhargava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner’s journey from his leave station to his duty station, undertaken solely for rejoining duty, was an essential service obligation and not for personal reasons. The reliance was placed on Rule 9(2) read with Schedule III (Category ‘B’) of the CCS (EOP) Rules, which according to the petitioner provides that any disability or death resulting from accidents while proceeding to or returning from a duty station is deemed attributable to government service. Furthermore, it is submitted that the respondents’ reliance on the nonavailment of a Railway Warrant or LTC advance is legally untenable, as Category B(ii) in Schedule- III of Rule 9(2) of the CCS(EOP), Rules expressly covers private mode of transport in accidents while travelling on duty.

¶33

9. It is submitted that the respondents finding that the petitioner’s injuries were “not attributable to service” is contrary to the provisions of the CCS (EOP), Rules. It is further contended that under Rule 4(1)(a) and Guideline 6(2)(d) in Schedule IV of Rule 5(3) of the CCS

¶34

2 “CCS(EOP), Rules”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified Signed By:PREETI W.P.(C) 12148/2025 Signing Date:26.11.2025 17:37:51

¶35

Page 4 of 9

¶36

(EOP), Rules, any injury sustained while “ proceeding from the duty station to the leave station or returning therefrom ” is deemed to have occurred in the course of Government service. Therefore, the respondents’ conclusion is arbitrary and misapplied the statutory requirements under Guideline 6(2)(d) in Schedule IV of Rule 5(3) of the CCS (EOP), Rules, which mandates that such cases be treated as service-related.

¶37

10. Per contra, Mr. Balendu Shekhar, learned CGSC, submits that the petitioner’s journey was undertaken while on sanctioned earned leave, and the injury sustained during this journey was not attributable to government service. He submits that petitioner was not on duty at the time of the accident and was traveling on a private motorcycle, without utilizing government transport or a Railway Warrant. Therefore, the petitioner’s journey does not meet the statutory criteria of being “on duty” under the CCS (EOP), Rules, which require travel to be at government expense, such as via Railway Warrant or LTC advance.

¶38

11. It is further submitted that the findings of the Medical Board, which stated that the disability was not attributable to government service, are final as per Rule 8 of the CCS (EOP), Rules. The petitioner did not file any review or appeal against these findings, which have thus attained legal finality. In addition, a Court of Inquiry was conducted shortly after the accident, and it concluded that the injuries sustained by the petitioner were not linked to government service. These findings were approved by the relevant authorities, and the petitioner did not challenge them at any stage.

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Signed By:PREETI W.P.(C) 12148/2025 Signing Date:26.11.2025 17:37:51

¶41

Page 5 of 9

¶42

12. It is also submitted that under Rule 4(b)(iv) and (v) of the CCS (EOP), Rules, 1939, a member of the Central Armed Police Forces is deemed to be “on duty” only when traveling at government expense, which was not the case here, as the petitioner was using his private motorcycle. Moreover, a clarification letter from the Headquarters Directorate (HQ DG BSF), dated 14.07.2021, reinforces that for an accident or death to be attributable to government service, the travel must be at government expense, which is not the case in the present facts.

¶43

13. Learned Counsel also pointed out that the petitioner was given an opportunity to submit a representation regarding his proposed retirement on medical grounds under Rule 25 of the BSF Rules, but he failed to respond. Consequently, the competent authority proceeded with his retirement and released all admissible benefits, including invalid pension, DCRG, CGEGIS, and GJSPKK, while rightly denying disability pension due to the absence of attributability under the rules.

¶44

14. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner suffers from 90% permanent disability as a result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident while traveling from his home town to the Battalion Headquarters after completing his earned leave. In view of this, the primary issue for determination in the present case is whether the disability suffered by the petitioner, resulting from an accident during his return to duty from his leave station, is attributable to Signature Not Verified

¶45

Signed By:PREETI W.P.(C) 12148/2025 Signing Date:26.11.2025 17:37:51

¶46

Page 6 of 9

¶47

government service, as per Category B(ii) in Schedule 3 read with Guideline 6 (1)(a) and 6(2)(d) in Schedule IV of Rule 5(3) of the CCS (EOP), Rules.

¶48

15. Schedule III of the CCS (EOP), Rules provides an illustrative list of circumstances under which the death or disability of a Government servant is considered attributable to government service for the purposes of granting Extraordinary Family Pension or Disability Pension under Categories B, C, and D. As per Category B(ii) in Schedule III, death or disability is treated as attributable to Government service in cases involving accidents occurring while travelling on duty, whether in an official mode of transport or in public, private, or other mass transportation systems such as a train, aircraft, or ship etc. Guideline 6 (1)(a) and 6(2)(d) in Schedule IV of Rule 5(3) of the CCS (EOP), Rules, which is also relevant for our purposes, reads thus:

¶49

“6.(1)(a) Injuries sustained when a Government servant is 'on duty' will be deemed to have arisen in, or resulted from, Government service; but in cases of injuries due to serious negligence or misconduct, the question of reducing the disability pension will be considered.

¶50

(2) A person subject to the disciplinary code of the Central Armed Police Battalions, is 'on duty' –

¶51

(d) When proceeding from his duty station to his leave station or returning to duty from his leave station.”

¶52

16. Thus, the statutory scheme under the CCS (EOP), Rules is unambiguously clear in its intent that a government servant is deemed to be “on duty” when proceeding from his duty station to his leave

¶53

Signature Not Verified

¶54

Signed By:PREETI W.P.(C) 12148/2025 Signing Date:26.11.2025 17:37:51

¶55

Page 7 of 9

¶56

station or returning from his leave station to his duty station. Further, the Category B(ii) in Schedule III, clarifies that death or disability arising from accidents occurring while travelling on duty, irrespective of whether the journey is undertaken in an official mode of transport or in any public or private conveyance is treated as attributable to Government service. The statutory framework therefore leaves no scope to introduce conditions regarding travel at government expense or the use of a particular mode of transport.

¶57

17. Adverting to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner was traveling on his personal motorcycle from his home station to his duty station when the accident occurred. In accordance with the provisions under Guideline 6 (1)(a) and 6(2)(d) in Schedule IV of Rule 5(3) of the CCS (EOP), Rules, the petitioner was “on duty” as he was returning to his duty station from his leave station. Consequently, the injury sustained by the petitioner, which resulted in a permanent disability, is deemed attributable to Government service.

¶58

18. The respondents’ contention that the petitioner was not on duty at the time of the accident and was traveling on a private motorcycle, without utilizing government transport or a Railway Warrant, is misplaced. Category B(ii) in Schedule III express includes private transportation as a mode of transport “on duty” to attribute disability of a Government servant as attributable to Government service.

¶59

19. Therefore, the respondents’ contention that the petitioner was not “on duty” because he was not traveling at government expense is contrary to the clear and unambiguous language of the statutory Signature Not Verified

¶60

Signed By:PREETI W.P.(C) 12148/2025 Signing Date:26.11.2025 17:37:51

¶61

Page 8 of 9

¶62

provisions, which do not impose any conditions regarding the mode of transport only being government-funded. Consequently, we are unable to agree with the respondents' submission, as the rules clearly support the petitioner's position that the injury sustained during the travel, which led to the petitioner’s permanent disability, is attributable to government service.

¶63

20. It is a settled law that under Article 226, the writ court’s scope of interference extends to correcting errors of law apparent on the face of the record, or quashing decisions that disregards provisions of law. Hence, in the present case, the respondents have misapplied the relevant statutory provisions, thereby justifying the interference of this court under Article 226.

¶64

21. In view of Category B(ii) in Schedule 3 of the CCS(EOP), read with Guideline 6 (1)(a) and 6(2)(d) in Schedule IV of Rule 5(3) of the CCS (EOP), Rules, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to disability pension as per law.

¶65

22. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶66

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

¶67

C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶68

NOVEMBER 19, 2025/ gunn

¶69

Signature Not Verified

¶70

Signed By:PREETI W.P.(C) 12148/2025 Signing Date:26.11.2025 17:37:51

¶71

Page 9 of 9

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Remarks/finding of BSF authorities dated 23.11.2021 (Commandant, 178 Bn BSF), 03.12.2021 (Deputy Inspector General, IG (HQ), Force Headquarters, BSF) and 15.01.2022 (Inspector General, (HQ), Force Headquarters, BSF), endorsing the conclusion that the injuries sustained by the petitioner were not attributable to his bona-fide government service.¶11
Commandant, 178 Bn BSF / Deputy Inspector General (HQ), Force Headquarters, BSF / Inspector General (HQ), Force Headquarters, BSF · 23.11.2021; 03.12.2021; 15.01.2022
Prior proceeding
Petitioner enrolled as Head Constable (Radio Operator) in the Border Security Force and granted Earned Leave from 18.02.2019 to 24.02.2019.¶16
Prior proceeding
On 24.02.2019, while returning to his duty station after leave, the petitioner met with a serious motor vehicle accident on the Kulan-Bhuna Road, Fatehabad, Haryana; FIR No. 0070 lodged at Police Station Bhuna on 01.03.2019 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC.¶17
Prior proceeding
Departmental Court of Inquiry convened by 178 Bn BSF concluded that the injuries had no causal connection with bona-fide Government duty and were not attributable to service.¶18
Prior proceeding
Commandant of 178 Bn BSF recorded remarks dated 23.11.2021 that the injuries were not attributable to bona fide government service (non-availment of Railway Warrant or LTC advance); endorsed by the Deputy Inspector General (HQ) BSF on 03.03.2021 (as printed; described elsewhere as 03.12.2021) and the Inspector General (HQ) BSF on 15.01.2022.¶22
Prior proceeding
Disability Medical Board at Civil Hospital, Fatehabad issued disability certificate dated 13.12.2022 declaring 90% permanent disability; petitioner classified in permanent low medical category S1 H2A5(S)(U)(L) P1 E1 per Medical Board Proceedings dated 12.01.2024; Board concluded disability not attributable to bona fide government service and declared him unfit for further service.¶26
Prior proceeding
Show cause notice dated 22.02.2024 served by Commandant of 9 BN BSF under Rule 25(3) of the BSF Rules, 1969, the petitioner being considered unfit for further service.¶27
Prior proceeding
Order dated 19.03.2024 issued by Commandant of 9 BN BSF retiring the petitioner from service on grounds of physical unfitness, granting invalid pension under Rule 38 read with Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021).¶30

Manjeet Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjeet Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annu Devi Vs Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Individual Non Taxable Entity, Director a and T Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. Commisisoner of Cgst Delhi West & Anr.

Munna Prasad Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr.

M/S Rbc Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mansi Tanwar Vs State of NCT of Delhi through Sub Registrar II a Punjabi Bagh & Ors.

Mehul Goel Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Navin Road Lines Vs Assistant Registrar Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

M/S Ashish Foils Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Munna Prasad Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr.

Shambhu Nath Rai Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vijender Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Ic 34187K Col Rajnee Kant Verma

M/S Clues Network Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S L Oreal

Ms. Jaya Vs Union of India