G.D. Ishwar Chand vs Union of India and Others

B.A. Khan, J.—Petitioner, a Constable in the Indo Tibetian Border Police (ITBP) was on deputation to National Security Guard (NSG). He was on a sanctioned short leave and while returning from his leave he met with an accident on 29.3.95 and sustained injuries. He was later placed in low medical category CEE(P) on 10.12.96 and was ultimately invalided out of service, without determination of percentage of his disability on 23.4.2000, after rendering more than 12 years of service. He was granted the service element of the pension but not the disability element of it. He represented against this but without any result. He has now filed this petition and is asking for release of 50% of the disability pension in terms of GOI Notification dated 3.2.2000. He also seeks direction to Respondent No. 4 (Insurance Company) to satisfy his claim of Rs. 2.5 lacs with interest. Respondents 1 and 2 have admitted that petitioner was on a short leave when he met with an accident on 29.3.95 and that he was placed in low medical category CEE(P) thereafter and was invalided from service. This is, however, disputed that injury sustained by him was attributable to government service as he was not on bonafide government duty on the date of accident. This was also held by the court of enquiry under NSG and its report was affirmed even by Group Commander. Accordingly his case was not covered under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension Rules) under which the EOP disability pension was to be granted only when injury or disease occurred during the discharge of duties. He was, however, granted invalid pension of Rs. 1275/- per month from 24.4.2000. It is also disputed that Notification No. 45/22/97-P&PW(C) dated 3.2.2000 was attracted to his case. In response to insurance claim, it is submitted that Long Term Group Janta Personnel Accident Insurance Policy for ITBP personnel was launched on 12.11.98 under which the insurance cover was valid for 12 years from 12.11.98 upto 11.11.10 for all registered members. But since petitioner had met with an accident on 29.3.95, his case could not be forwarded to the insurance company for satisfying his claim.

Respondent No. 4 has also filed a counter refuting petitioner''s insurance claim on the ground that accident had occurred on 29.3.95 much prior to the date of commencement of insurance policy.

Since it is admitted that petitioner''s claim was to be examined under the CCS (EOP) Rules, these rules would have an important bearing on the petitioner''s claim. A perusal of these rules shows that these laid down parameters for entitlement to grant of disability pension in case of disability and death which occurred due to Government Service. Rule 3A of these rules deals with the disability and death which is accepted as due to Government service and it provides:

3-A(1)(a) "Disablement shall be accepted as due to Government service, provided that it is certified that it is due to wound, injury or disease which -

(i) is attributable to Government service, or

(ii) existed before or arose during Government service and has been and remains aggravated thereby.

(b) Death shall be accepted as due to Government service provided it is certified that it was due to or hastened by -

(i) a wound, injury or disease which was attributable to Government service, or

(ii) the aggravation by Government service of a wound, injury or disease which existed before or arose during Government service.

Under the provisions of this rule disablement is regarded as due to government service if it is certified that it was due to wound, injury or disease which was attributable to Government service or which existed before or arose during government service or had been aggravated thereby. Similarly death is accepted as due to Government service provided it is certified that it was due to or hastened by wound, injury or disease which was attributable to Government service or which was aggravated by Government service having existed before or during Government service. Clause 2 of this rule, however, makes it mandatory that there should be a casual connection between disablement or death and the Government service on the other. It also says that guidelines in respect of attributability to Government service are given in Appendix to these rules and which shall be treated as part and parcel of these rules.

There is a separate chapter containing the guidelines for considering attributability of disablement or death to Government service attached to the rules. Clause 4(a)(i) of these provides:

Injuries sustained when the man is on duty will be deemed to have arisen in or resulted from Government service, but in case of injury due to wound or misconduct the question of reducing the disability pension would be considered.

Sub Clause (b) of this Clause 4 deals with the circumstances in which a person subject to disciplinary code of Central Armed Police Battalions is to be treated on duty.

Sub clause (iv) of this Clause which is relevant for our purposes provides:

when proceeding from his duty station to his leave station on returning to duty from his leave station on public expenses, i.e., on railway warrant, cash TA, in Government transport or when road mileages are paid for the journey.

Government of India have now issued office memorandum dated 3rd February, 2000 consequent upon recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commissions categorising the cases for determination of compensation payable for death or disability under different circumstances which may not be of much help for establishing petitioner''s entitlement, but which surely throws light on the attributability aspect. Category C of this says that death or disability due to accidents in the performance of duties could be accidents while travelling on duty in government vehicles or public transport, a journey on duty is performed by service aircraft, mishaps at sea, electrocution while on duty, etc.

Going by the terms of Rule 3A of these rules, it goes without saying that there must be some connection between disability or death and the government service. Disablement shall be accepted as due to Government service, provided it is certified that it is due to wound, injury or disease which is attributable to Government service, or existed before or arose during Government service and has been and remains aggravated by it. But guidelines laid down under these rules makes matter easier by providing in Clause 4A that injury sustained by the Government servant when he is on duty would be deemed to have arisen or resulted from government service which in other words means that injury would have to be treated as due to government service if the government servant was on duty at the time of accident irrespective of whether such accident or injury was caused in due discharge or performance of the government duty. Likewise Sub Clause (iv) of Clause 4 of these guidelines treats a person subject to disciplinary code of Central Armed Police Battalions as on duty if he is proceeding from his duty station to his leave station returning to duty from his leave station on public expenses. Even this aspect has been taken care of by the Supreme Court Judgment in Madan Singh Shekhawat Vs. Union of India and Others, holding that it made no difference whether the travel expenses in such case were to be borne by the public exchequer or by the person concerned. Though Supreme Court was dealing with the case of an Army personnel, the principle enunciated by it on the interpretation of the relevant rules is "that a person incurring disability when proceeding to his leave station or returning to duty from his leave station even on his own expenses was also entitled to the grant of disability pension would be applicable in other similar cases also."

In the present case it is averred by petitioner in para 5 of his petition that while he was returning from his short leave to join his duty, he was injured in a bus accident on 29.3.95. There is no specific rebuttal to this in the counter filed by R-1 & 3 in which they have admitted that he had met with an accident while he was on sanctioned short leave. However, the remarks of the Group Commander, on the court of enquiry held in respect of this accident, records that he was returning to Group Headquarters in a Rajasthan Roadways bus which collided with truck resulting in the accident and injuries to the petitioner. Therefore, it is established that petitioner had sustained injuries in the accident while returning from his short leave to the Group Headquarters. He was consequently to be treated on duty in terms of Sub Clause (v) of Clause 4 guidelines attached to the CCS (Pension) Rules which treats the proceeding from the duty station to leave station and returning from there as on duty on public expenses. Since the Supreme Court Judgment supra had erased the distinction between public expenses and private expenses there was no hitch in treating petitioner on duty and since he had received injuries while on duty, this was to be deemed to have arisen and resulted from Government service in terms of Clause 4A of the relevant rules, entitling him to the grant of disability pension. In view of this petitioner''s claim succeeds to this extent and respondents are directed to consider his case for grant of disability pension and pass appropriate orders in the matter within three months from receipt of this order. His second prayer for grant of insurance claim is, however, rejected in the face of stand taken by R-4 that he was not covered by the insurance policy of the relevant time.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.