Orissa High Court Orders CRPF to Grant Disability Pension in Schizophrenia Case
The Orissa High Court has set aside a 2011 decision that denied disability pension to a retired Central Reserve Police Force personnel diagnosed with schizophrenia, holding that the rejection could not stand when the force itself had earlier recorded his entitlement to pension on medical invalidation. The court has directed the authorities to sanction the disability pension and pay the arrears.
Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy passed the order on October 1, 2026. In doing so, the court found that the later rejection was not legally sustainable, especially because the CRPF’s own invalidation order from 1999 had already stated that the personnel was entitled to a 50 per cent disability pension and that order had never been modified or recalled.
Retired on medical invalidation in 1999
According to the judgment, the petitioner, a former CRPF employee, was permitted to retire on medical invalidation in 1999 after being diagnosed with schizophrenia. A medical board had examined him and concluded that he was completely and permanently incapacitated for further service. On that basis, it recommended disability pension at 50 per cent.
The invalidation retirement order issued by the CRPF specifically mentioned that he would be entitled to disability pension from the date of invalidation. That detail became central to the High Court’s reasoning, since the later dispute turned on whether the pension could be denied despite the earlier official finding.
Claim later turned down in 2011
More than a decade later, his claim was rejected in 2011. The authorities said schizophrenia was not a classified disease for the purpose of Extraordinary Disability Pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. They also said he had not completed the required 10 years of qualifying service. On that basis, he was told he was entitled only to service gratuity, which had already been paid.
The petitioner challenged that decision before the High Court and sought quashing of the 2011 rejection, along with release of the disability pension that had earlier been indicated in the invalidation retirement order.
Court finds later rejection unsustainable
Justice Satapathy noted that the petitioner had not merely been diagnosed with schizophrenia, but had been allowed to retire on medical invalidation precisely because of that condition, following the medical board’s finding that he was permanently unfit for service. The court emphasised that the 1999 order had expressly recorded entitlement to a 50 per cent disability pension from the date of invalidation.
“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 observed.
The court also held that because the 1999 order clearly recognised the entitlement and had never been changed or withdrawn, the grounds cited to deny the pension were untenable. It further said the subsequent denial was affected by the principle of promissory estoppel, which prevents a party from going back on a clear assurance on which the other side has acted.
As a result, the High Court quashed the 2011 rejection and directed the authorities to grant the disability pension and release the arrears due to the petitioner. Published reports of the judgment do not name him.
The ruling was reported by The Indian Express on October 6, 2026.
