Since it was clear in the order that the petitioner was entitled to get disability pension of 50% and the order since was never modified, the court said the petitioner’s claim can’t be rejected. (AI-generated image)Holding that the petitioner’s claim could not be rejected merely because schizophrenia was not a classified disease, the Orissa High Court has quashed a 2011 order rejecting a former CRPF personnel’s claim for disability pension, directing the authorities to allow the pension and release the arrears.Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy was dealing with a plea of a former personnel with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), who retired on medical grounds in 1999 due to schizophrenia with an approved 50 per cent disability pension. However, the authorities later revoked the benefit, claiming schizophrenia was non-classified and he lacked 10 years of service.“Taking into account the nature of the order passed and the grounds of rejection issued, this court is of the view that since the petitioner was allowed to take retirement on the ground of invalidation because of his…schizophrenia, on the ground that such a disease is not a classified disease, the petitioner’s claim could not have been rejected,” the court said on October 1.The ruling held that since it was clearly indicated in the order that the petitioner is entitled to get the disability pension of 50 per cent and the said order since was never modified or recalled, this court is of the view that the ground on which the petitioner’s claim was rejected is not sustainable in the eyes of the law.Retired due to schizophreniaThe petitioner was a CRPF employee who was allowed to retire on medical invalidation in 1999 after he was found to have schizophrenia. The medical board had found him completely and permanently incapacitated for future service and recommended disability pension of 50 per cent. Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy observed that the pension claim was rejected on the grounds that schizophrenia was not a classified disease.The CRPF’s order allowing his invalidation retirement also specifically stated that he would be entitled to the pension from the date of invalidation.Also Read | Can’t save ‘eroded’ marriage just by legally preserving it: Orissa High Court backs divorceHowever, his claim for disability pension was later rejected in 2011. The authorities said schizophrenia was not a classified disease for the purpose of Extraordinary Disability Pension (EOP) under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and that he had not completed the required 10 years of qualifying service. He was told he was only entitled to service gratuity, which had already been paid.Story continues below this adThe petitioner challenged the rejection before the high court, seeking quashing of the 2011 order and release of his disability pension.Original order never recalled: OrderThe court noted that the petitioner was allowed to retire on medical invalidation because of schizophrenia, based on the medical board’s assessment that he was permanently incapacitated for further service. The 1999 retirement order specifically stated that he was entitled to 50 per cent disability pension from the date of invalidation.The high court observed that the pension claim was later rejected on the grounds that schizophrenia was not a classified disease and that the petitioner had not completed 10 years of qualifying service.Also Read | ‘Like straw fire’: Quoting Nepali proverb, Sikkim High Court quashes wife’s cruelty caseIt further noted that the original retirement order had never been modified or recalled. Therefore, the subsequent rejection of the pension claim was not sustainable in law and was also hit by the principle of promissory estoppel, a legal principle that allows a court to enforce a promise even when there is no formal, written contract.Jagriti Rai works with The Indian Express (Digital), where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives. Expertise Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties. Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience. Academic Foundations: Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute. Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More