AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-
“a)Directing the respondents to place the relevant records, pertaining to the present writ petition before their lordships for the proper adjudication in matter in the interest of justice. b) Quash and setting aside the impugned order dt. May 2025 (Annexure P/1) declining the claim of the petitioner on the premises that the husband of the applicant died due to natural cases (Heart Attack), not attributable to Government service, and the applicant is not eligible to EOFP and Ex-Gratia payment, further directing the respondent to grant Extra Ordinary pension and Ex-Gratia payment from the date of the death of petitioner’s husband w.e.f. 23.10.2021 under CCS (EOP) Rules and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 26.03.2025 in WP(C) 12256/2022 titled as Sunita Devi Vs UOI & Ors, dt. 15.10.15 in WP(C) 6351/2013, titled as Rajesh Kumari Vs. UOI & Ors and dt. 10.04.19 in WP (C) 2684/2017 titled as Ranju Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors. with all other consequential benefits i.e. the arrears of differences with interest etc.”
The petitioner is the wife of the late Head Constable/GD Manish Kumar. Her case is that her husband was enrolled with the respondents/Central Reserve Police Force as Constable with effect from 22.03.2001. On 23.10.2021, the husband of the petitioner was assigned duty of maintaining law and order at Ghazipur border during farmer’s protest. He had informed the Assistant Commandant/Company Commander about his ill health, resulting the petitioner’s husband being sent to common M.I. Room Bawana wherein on medical examination, he was referred to Mahrishi Valmiki Hospital Bawana wherein the Doctors declared him as ‘brought dead’. The cause of the death as opined by the Doctors was due to heart attack. A Court of Inquiry was conducted on 20.09.2004 wherein it is established that the husband of the petitioner had died due to Coronary Artery insufficiency and its complications. It is also held the same to be a natural cause of death (heart attack). On 24.10.2021/07.07.2022, a Pension Payment Order was issued granting ordinary family pension. The claim of the petitioner was for extraordinary pension and ex gratia payment.
On 20.11.2024, the petitioner submitted her representation for grant of extraordinary family pension and ex gratia payment as per Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 [“CCS (EOP) Rules]. The respondents declined the request of the petitioner in the month of May, 2025 by referring to Rule 9(2), 10, 11(1) and Schedule B of the CCS (EOP) Rules holding that the death or disability cases are characterised in 5 distinct categories. The case of the death of the husband of the petitioner would as per the respondent fall in category-A, which is defined as death or disability due to natural causes not attributable to Government service, e.g. chronic ailments such as heart and renal diseases, prolonged illness, accidents while not on duty. It was their stand that as the husband of the petitioner has died due to natural causes not attributable to Government service, therefore, she is not eligible to the extraordinary family pension and ex-gratia payment.
The submission of Mr. M. K. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the issue that death because of heart attack is relatable to stress and strain of the duty and as such, the relatable benefits need to be granted to the dependent of the deceased employee is well settled by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunita Devi v. Union of India & Ors., 2025:DHC:2865-DB wherein the husband of the petitioner therein had died after suffering cardiac arrest while participating in the Field Physical Efficiency Test.
The stand of the respondents therein is that the employee had died because of heart attack and since, heart attack is not a disease, which is caused by stress and strain, in terms of instructions issued at the relevant time, the wife cannot be granted the extraordinary pension, was negated by this Court by stating in the said judgment in paragraphs 8 and 9 as under:-
“8.Diseases affected by stress and strain are enumerated under Head B in Schedule I-A, thus:
“(B) Diseases affected by stress and strain:
(i)Psychosis and Psychoneurosis;
(ii)Hyperpiesia;
(iii)Hypertension (Blood Pressure);
(iv)Pulmonary Tuberculosis;
(v)Pulmonary Tuberculosis with pleural effusion;
(vi)Tuberculosis - Non-pulmonary:
(vii)Mitral Stenosis;
(viii)Pericarditis and adherent pericardium;
(ix)Endo-carditis;
(x)Sub-acute bacterialendo-carditis, including infective endocarditis;
(xi)Nyocarditis - acute or chronic;
(xii)Valvular disease;”
9.Though, strictly speaking, a heart attack is not included as one of the diseases affected by stress and strain, we are of the opinion that a reasonable and meaningful interpretation has to be accorded to the Schedule. When the Schedule includes hypertension and valvular disease in the list of diseases covered under Head B, as diseases affected by stress and strain, it is irrational and illogical to hold that if a person suffers a heart attack, it would not be covered under the Schedule. This would also render the Schedule prima facie arbitrary, and it is a well settled principle of interpretation that any interpretation which renders a statutory provision to be arbitrary or unconstitutional must be avoided.”
Suffice to state that Mr. Gaur during the course of his submissions has referred to the notification issued by the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pension on 30.01.2023 wherein the Ministry has issued a notification, notifying the Rules called the Central Civil Services Extraordinary Pension Rules, 2023 whereby under Rule 4(d)(12), which deals with the diseases effected by stress and strain, the respondents have included heart attack and cardio related diseases.
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents would justify the impugned order of May, 2025 of the respondents stating that in the given facts, the death of the husband of the petitioner is not attributable to Government service. More specifically, in view of the instructions existing at the time of the death of husband of the petitioner.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is a conceded position that the husband of the petitioner had complained of his illness when he was assigned duty of maintaining law and order at Ghazipur border and he was taken to the hospital where he was declared ‘dead’. The conclusion drawn by Doctors is that as the same was because of the heart attack. The issue as to whether heart attack can be construed as a disease effected by stress and strain has been conclusively decided by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Sunita Devi (supra).
If that be so, the only stand taken by the respondents that the heart attack cannot be considered as a disease effected by stress and strain on the date of death cannot be accepted as the said issue is covered by the judgment of Coordinate Bench in Sunita Devi (supra).
We, accordingly, quash the impugned communication of May, 2025 and hold that the petitioner shall be entitled to extraordinary pension and ex gratia compensation as would be payable to the petitioner from the date of the death of her husband and the same shall be paid within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
With the above directions, we dispose of the present petition.