Rajasthan High Court Ends 43-Year Pension Battle for CRPF Constable's Family
In a landmark judgment that brings closure to a legal struggle spanning over four decades, the Rajasthan High Court has ordered the Central government to release pensionary benefits to the family of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable who was discharged from service in 1973 due to chronic bronchitis. The court emphatically ruled that denial of pension solely because the employee had not completed 10 years of qualifying service is legally unsustainable when the discharge is based on medical invalidation.
Court's Ruling on Invalid Pension Entitlement
Justice Praveer Bhatnagar, in a judgment delivered on February 3, 2026, allowed the writ petition filed by the legal heirs of the late Bhagirath Singh. The court held that under Rule 49(2) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, a person discharged from service due to invalidation is entitled to pension benefits even before completing 10 years of service. The court directed the authorities to release the pension to Singh's family within two months.
"Even before the expiry of 10 years, if a person is discharged from service on the ground of invalidation, they are entitled to the pensionary benefits," the court stated, citing Supreme Court precedents and its own previous judgments.
Background of the Case
Bhagirath Singh was appointed as a constable in the State Reserve Police Force on September 1, 1964, after clearing a medical examination. He was later inducted into the CRPF on April 1, 1968. During his service, he developed "chronic bronchitis with airway obstruction" and was discharged on October 20, 1973, based on the opinion of a medical board.
Despite repeated representations, his pension claim remained unresolved for decades. Singh passed away during the pendency of the legal proceedings, after which his wife and sons continued the fight as petitioners.
Government's Objections and Court's Rejection
The Centre opposed the petition, arguing that:
- Singh had not completed the mandatory 10 years of qualifying service under Rule 49(2)
- The petitioner had sought disability pension rather than invalid pension
The court rejected these objections, relying on the Supreme Court's 2019 ruling in Union of India v P A Thomas, which established that employees discharged due to permanent medical incapacity are entitled to invalid pension regardless of service duration. The court also referenced its own coordinate bench judgment in Kharta Ram v Union of India.
Key Legal Principles Established
- Medical invalidation during service qualifies for pension benefits under Rule 49(2)
- The 10-year service requirement does not apply to involuntary medical discharges
- Discharge based on certified medical conditions constitutes invalidation under pension rules
The court noted that Singh's discharge was involuntary, medically certified, and occurred during active service, squarely attracting the provisions of Rule 49(2). This ruling sets an important precedent for similar cases involving government employees discharged on medical grounds before completing minimum service requirements.
The judgment brings long-awaited relief to Singh's family after 43 years of bureaucratic delays and legal battles, highlighting the judiciary's role in ensuring justice for those wrongfully denied their rightful benefits.
