JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed praying to quash acceptance of resignation dated 01.08.2001 directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner or in the alternative give disability pension to the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined Indo-Tibetan Border Police on 23.11.1990 as constable at B.T.C. (Basic Training Centre), Kullu (Himachal Pradesh). He underwent the usual training course and was posted at Kashmir Valley and continued to serve there till he was forced to resign from the services while the petitioner was posted in ITBP (II Battall-ian) at Lathpur. 3. According to the petitioner, while on patrolling duty on 21.03.2001 at Kakapura he sustained injury in his right hand and the petitioner has undergone treatment and ultimately 30% permanent disability was assessed at District Hospital, Kathua by a team of doctors. 4. The petitioner has explained the accident and the treatments taken as follows. The petitioner had sustained injury on hie right hand and he underwent treatment of Company Medico. As there was no improvement, he was sent to Unit Hospital where the C.M.O examined the petitioner and further referred the petitioner to 92, Base Hospital of Army situated at Batwara Camps, Srinagar on 29.03.2001. He was examined at 92-Base Hospital and ultimately was referred for further treatment at L.M. Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. The petitioner remained under treatment and reported for duty on 02.07.2001. According to the petitioner, instead of discharging the petitioner on medical grounds on physical disability, he was forced to resign on 04.07.2001 and he was not issued any discharge certificate, therefore, the petitioner challenged the said discharge. 5. During pendency of the writ petition, the discharge order was provided and the prayer was amended. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner sustained injury while doing duty on 21.03.2001, he was not referred to medical board and even medical expenses were not given. Due to mental strain and inconvenience to perform his duties due to the disability sustained in his right hand, he was forced to resign on 04.07.2001 and the said resignation was accepted which was given effect from 01.08.2001. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that he could have been discharged on medical grounds and he having served for more than 10 years he would be in a position to get disability pension. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that he could have been discharged on medical grounds and he having served for more than 10 years he would be in a position to get disability pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was compelled to resign due to the injury sustained and inability to perform his duties, therefore, the said resignation be treated as discharge due to medical ground, so that the petitioner would be in a position to get disability pension. 8. In the objections filed by the respondents, it is stated that after the resignation was accepted the petitioner has received RPF payment, MASP payment, CGEGIS payment, leave encashment and GPF final payment etc. and thereafter only the writ petition was filed. The fact that the petitioner met with an accident on 21.03.2001, sustained injury and was referred to Medical Hospital and ultimately he reported for duty on 02.07.2001 is not denied. 9. Whether a person, who resigned on indifferent health and family circumstances in the absence of any scheme to go on voluntary retirement after completing the required number of pensionary service, can claim pension based on his past service was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court with reference to Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 in the decision reported in AIR 2011 SC 2990 (Sheelkumar Jain v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) as well as in decision reported in 2015 AIR SCW 6362 (Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India) and Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that resignation submitted by a person on medical grounds coupled with family circumstances after rendering years of service eligible for pension should be treated as voluntary retirement for the purposes of getting pension. Considering the fact that by submitting mere resignation on valid reasons in the absence of Voluntary Retirement Scheme cannot obliterate the service already rendered for purposes of getting pension. In this case the respondents should have assessed disability of the petitioner when he reported back on duty to ascertain as to whether he was fit to continue in service and if he was found disabled, the respondents ought to have discharged the petitioner on medical grounds. Hence the resignation submitted by the petitioner shall not be put against the petitioner to deny the disability pension. 10. Hence the resignation submitted by the petitioner shall not be put against the petitioner to deny the disability pension. 10. A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in a decision reported as III (2004) Delhi Law Times 550 (Mahavir Singh Narwal v. Union of India and Anr.) considered similarly issue and held that a person who has resigned due to medical ground should be treated as discharged on medical grounds and the disability pension has to be sanctioned. The said case was relating to military service where the Military Medical Board assessed 30% disability. In this case the petitioner's disability was not assessed by the Medical Board of the respondents. Even though the petitioner claimed that he is having 30% disability in his right hand, the same is to be verified by the Medical Board of the respondents. 11. If the petitioner is assessed of disability and the disability is more than the eligibility for getting disability pension as per the rules relating to the disability pension applicable to the persons of Indo-Tibetan Border Police, the respondents shall sanction the disability pension to the petitioner. The 3rd respondent is directed to refer the petitioner to the medical board to assess the disability and if disability to be assessed is more than the disability prescribed for grant of disability pension the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to sanction disability pension to the petitioner from 01.08.2001. Necessary orders in this regard be passed within a period of four months from the date copy of this order is served on the respondents, 12. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Petition disposed of