AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Debnath, learned CGC for the respondents.
The brief fact of the petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:
By this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for issuing direction by way of Writ of Mandamus against the respondent for grant of Disability
Pension to the Petitioner under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 as the petitioner being victim of battle casualty
suffered 60% damage to his left leg while patrolling and Invalid Pension under Rule 38 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 instead of normal retiring
pension which has been granted as the petitioner is invalidated out by the Medical Board on the medical grounds due to injury which was
attributable to service and Secondly, for payment of ex-gratia lump-sum compensation to the Petitioner as per the Office Memorandum No.
27011/64/2009 - R & W dated 21.11.2011 making provision for payment of ex-gratia lump-sum compensation to Central Armed Forces
(CAPF) personnel who sustain injuries and become disabled or incapacitated on account of causes accepted or attributable to, or aggravated
Government Service"".
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner during his service period sustained bullet injury and thereafter, the extent of
injury was assessed by the Medical Board of the Assam Rifles who found that the injury sustained by him was 40% and thereafter, he was placed
on ground duty till his retirement i.e. 01.11.2014. Thereafter, he was allowed to go for pension with pensionary benefits under Rule 48 of the CCS
(Pension) Rules. The learned counsel further raised before the Court that, since the petitioner sustained injury during his service, it amounts to injury
suffered contributed to his service. Since assessment was done and found 40% injury, the petitioner should be given compensation entitled for the
40% injury he suffered. So, necessary directions may be issued.
On the other hand, the learned CGC submits that it is a fact that the petitioner has suffered injury and since he has got his full pensionary benefits
at the time of retirement, further compensation for the injury suffered does not arise as per Rule 6 of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary
Pension) Rules, 1939.
After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel and after going through the Annexure-2 at Page 24 and 25 of the writ petition, it
appears that the assessment was done within a year from the date of injury i.e. 15th May, 1996. Therefore, in my view, the respondent should
have granted compensation for the injury suffered by the petitioner immediately after the enquiry. I could not understand the reason that prevented
them in releasing the compensation to the petitioner for the injury he sustained immediately after the assessment i.e. 15th May, 1996. Therefore, I
am of the considered view that, at this stage they cannot take the plea under the umbrella of Rule 6 of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary
Pension) Rules, 1939. Therefore, the respondent is hereby directed to release the compensation (Disability Pension) for the injury sustained by the
petitioner during his service for 40% within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order along with 6% interest from the
date of assessment of injury; and the respondent''s authority should note that, in case if they fail to release the compensation in time, the rate of
12% interest will start from the expiry of one month till the realization is completed.
With this observation and direction the writ petition is allowed to that extent and stands disposed of.