AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed 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. 12.04.22 (Annexure P/1) declining the claim of the petitioner for grant of extra ordinary pension further directing the respondent to grant of Extra Ordinary pension from the date of the death of petitioner’s husband w.e.f. 27.02.2016 under CCS (EOP) Rules in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on dt. 15.10.15 in WP(C) 6351/2013, titled as Rajesh KumariVs. 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.
c)Allow the present writ petition with all other consequential benefits and cost.”
The challenge in this petition is primarily to the order dated 12.04.2022 whereby the respondents have held that the death of the husband of the petitioner is not attributable to the Government duty and the claim made in the present petition relatable to the grant of extraordinary pension from the date of death of petitioner’s husband that is w.e.f. 27.02.2016 under the provisions of The Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939, is not admissible.
Mr. M. K. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the Court of Inquiry proceedings at page no. 38 of the paper book, which reads as under:-
“1 In pursuant to 50 Bn BSF Order No 50 Bn/Estt/COI/2015/2010 13 dated 02 March 2016, a Court was assembled to investigate into the circumstances under which No 901992905 Late Ct Dharmender Singh, "G" Goy of 50 Bn BSF expired at Govt. Hospital Rajpura (Punjab) while in route near Railway Station Rajpura to his home town to avail 05 days C/Leave wef 27/02/16 tο 07/03/16 2 Pursuant to the said order, detailed evidence has been collected and on its bases findings and opinion have been recorded a) As per report received from ASI Jasvir Singh of GRP Rajpura Railway Station on 27/02/16 at 1900 hrs that one passenger namely No 901992905 Ct Dharmender Singh of BSF S/O Sh Jagram Singh of Rewarı, Haryana Aged 45 years coming from Amritsar along with Ct Ravinder Kumar of 50 Bn BSF Amritsar in train Shan-A-Punjab got a pain in his chest, he was bought down at Rajupra Station by co-passenger Ct Ravinder Singh and other passenger in a wheel Chair and taken to the local A P Jain Hospital Rajpura (Govt Hospital) along with Railway Nursing Assistant by 1945 hrs and same time he was attended by the on duty Doctor and proper treatment was given to the diseased but no improvement was noticed and he was declared dead at 2110 hrs by the Doctor due to Cardiovascular collapse due to myocardial infection b) As per report of Dr Rama Kumari (MO) of A P Jain Hospital Rajpura (Govt Hospital) on 28/02/2016 at about 1035 hrs the Post Mortem was conducted As per the hospital and police record and investigation No 901992905 Ct Dharmender Singh was declared dead on 27/02/2016 at 2110 hrs by the Doctor due to Cardiovascular collapse due to myocardial infection No sign of any external and internal injury was detected on his body at the time of Post Mortem. No one is blamed for his death. The death is attributable to Govt bonafied duty, hence
3.I agree with the findings and opinions of the Court
4 I directed that-
a)All admissible financial assistance/pensioner benefits be paid to the next of kin of the deceased
b)Deduction worth Rs 18968 against cutting of Kit clothing issued to Individual may be recovered and deposited to Govt Treasury
c)RMA Rs 4000/- deposited by the individual may be returned to his next of kin after deduction the outstanding mess recovery of Rs 502/- of HQ Coy
d)All outstanding dues ie Pay/GPF/GJSPKK and other monetary benefit as per rules applicable to him and calculation may be paid to his next of kin
e)Force Identity Card bearing No 422489 issued to above deceased be recovered from NOK and further deposited with Ops Branch of this Limit tor disposed off as per laid down instructions”
He contends that the facts as noted by the Court of Inquiry clearly suggests that the husband of the petitioner while travelling from his field station to the leave station i.e. from Amritsar to Rewari in the train had chest pain and was taken to the Government hospital at Rajpura for treatment. It so transpired that he was declared dead at 21:10 hours by the Doctor from cardiovascular collapse caused due to myocardial infraction. Mr. Gaur submits that the petitioner was coming from his place of posting at Amritsar to Rewari after taking casual leave.
Mr. Gaur also submits that the final order of the Commandant of which a reference is made above, clearly states that the death is attributable to Government bonafide duty. Hence, according to Mr. Gaur that the impugned order dated 12.04.2022 being at variance with the conclusion drawn by the Commandant is totally illegal and perverse. According to him, even the stand of the respondents that the decision at page no. 38 of the paper book having been taken by the Commandant was without the approval of the Competent Authority i.e., the DIG, is a misconceived argument.
On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that in terms of the impugned order passed on 12.04.2022, in the given facts, the death of the husband of the petitioner is not attributable to the Government service.
During the course of submissions, Mr. Gaur has relied upon a judgment of a 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 having 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.
The said submission was negated by this Court in paragraphs 8 and 9 by stating as follows:-
“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, 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.
Having said that it is not disputed that the petitioner was travelling from Amritsar to Rewari, his home town after taking casual leave. This aspect has also not been denied. The only submission made by the counsel for the respondents is that since heart attack was not considered as a disease effected by stress and strain of duty at the relevant time, the petitioner was rightly denied the extraordinary pension on the death of her husband.
We are not in agreement with the stand taken by the respondents for the reason that the issue as to whether the heart attack can be construed as a disease effected by stress and strain is concluded by the judgment in the case of Sunita Devi (supra). It is not the case of the respondents that the travel of the petitioner from Amritsar to Rewari cannot be construed as being on duty.
If that be so, their only stand is that the petitioner having died of heart attack, which was not considered as a disease effected by stress and strain on the date of death and that the said issue is covered by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, we quash the order dated 12.04.2022 and hold that the petitioner shall be entitled to the extraordinary pension and ex gratia compensation as would be payable to the petitioner from the date of death of her husband, and the same shall be paid within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above directions, we dispose of the present petition.