AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 24.9.2013 (Annex.12) passed by the Chief Engineer, PHED,
whereby, the application made by the petitioners for payment of ex-gratia amount under Rule 75 of the Rajasthan
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (‘the Rules of 1996’) has been rejected.
It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petition that husband / father of the petitioners â€" Mr. Ummed Singh Verma, who was working on the post of
LDC with the respondent-Department, when he was returning back from Jaipur from official work in a private Bolero RJ-07-UB-2211 alongwith
Assistant Engineer â€" Mr. Ghshyam Meghwal and Mr. Dinesh Choudhary, the vehicle met with an accident resulting in death of Mr. Ummed Singh
due to injuries suffered by him. An FIR was lodged on 7.8.2012, inter alia, indicating that the deceased Ummed Singh alongwith other officers had
gone to Jaipur for official work and while returning back, the accident occurred, resulting in the injuries to / death of the occupants of the vehicle.
Whereafter, the petitioner No.1 was granted family pension vide PPO dated 19.9.2012. The prayer / application made by the petitioners under Rule 75
of the Rules of 1996 seeking grant of ex-gratia amount on account of death of Mr. Ummed Singh on official duty, was recommended / forwarded by
the Executive
Engineer on 19.2.2013 with the following observations:-
“Jheku v/kh{k.k vfHk;ark tu Lok-vfHk-foHkkx] o`r chdkusjA fo""k; %& jktLFkku flfoy lsok isa’ku foHkkx 75¼2½¼[k½ ds vUrxZr
vuqxzg jkf’k Lohd`r djus ckcrA izlax %& vkidk i`""Bkadu la[;k 16240 fnukad 19-2-13 mijksDr fo""k;kUrxZr izkalfxd i= ds Øe esa fuosnu gS fd Lo-
Jh mEesnflag oekZ dfu""B fyfid fnuakd 6-8-12 dks eq[;ky; t;iqj esa [kaM dk ekfld ys[kk izLrqr djus ,oa vU; jkt dk;Z gsrq jktdh; ;k=k ij futh okgu ls t;iqj
x;s Fks] rFkk fnukad 6-8-12 dks okfil ykSVrs le; jrux75¼2½¼[k½ esa of.kZr ifjfLFkfr esa LoxZokl gksus ds dkj.k jkT; ljdkj ds vkns’k Øekad ,Q12¼11½ ,Q Mh@:Yl@2009 fnukad 26-5-
11 ds vuqlkj :- 20-00 yk[k ¼v[kjs :i;k chl yk[k ek=½ vuqxzg jkf’k Lohd`fr dh vfHk'ka’kk dh tkrh gSA layXu %& ewy izdj.k lgh@&
vf/k'kk’kh vfHk;ark tu Lok-vfHk-foHkkx] ftyk xzkeh.k [kaM f}rh; chdkusj â€
The Additional Superintending Engineer forwarded the application to the Additional Chief Engineer. The Additional Chief Engineer in turn forwarded
the same to the Chief Engineer vide letter dated 1.3.2013. Both the authorities specifically indicating that the death occurred while the Government
Servant was on official duty.
By the impugned order dated 24.9.2013, the application made by the petitioners has been rejected. The order dated 24.9.2013 reads as under:-
“mijksDr fo""k;kUxZr vkids izkalfxd i= ls izsf""kr izdj.k ds Øe esa ys[k gS fd jktLFkku flfoy lsok isa’ku fu;e 1996 ds fu;e 75¼3½¼1½
esa fuEukafdr fcUnq dh larqf""V vfuok;Z gS %&
^^dkfeZd dh e`R;q M~;wVh ij jgrs gq, gqbZ gks] blesa dksbZ lUnsg u gks rFkk vfHkys[k ls izekf.kr gksrk gks** mDr izdj.k esa dk;kZy;k/;{k ,oa
mPprj vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk i= esa dkfeZd dks fnukad 06-08-2012 dks [k.M dk ekfld ys[kk izLrqr djus ,oa vU; jktdh; dk;Z gsrq jktdh; ;k=k ij futh okgu ls
t;iqj tkuk ,oa okil ykSVrs le; jruxizdj.k esa miyC/k djok;s x;s rF;ksa@nLrkosth lk{; vfHkys[k ls dkfeZd dk M~;wVh ij jgrs gq, nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q dh iqf""V ugha gksrh gSAâ€
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners based on
the ground that from the facts and documents available on record, it is not proved that the death occurred while on duty. It is submitted that the said
finding is exfacie incorrect, inasmuch as, the FIR was lodged immediately after the accident indicating the fact that the deceased-LDC was returning
back alongwith two engineers after submitting record at Jaipur when the vehicle met with an accident resulting in death of said Ummed Singh.
Besides the said FIR, the application made by the petitioners was duly endorsed by the Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Additional
Chief Engineer and, therefore, there was no reason for the Chief Engineer to reject the said application by doubting the recommendations /
endorsements made in this regard. It is submitted that the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioners be granted ex-
gratia payment alongwith interest.
Learned counsel for the respondent - PHED supported the order impugned. It was submitted that from the material available on record, it was not
proved that the accident occurred while deceased was on duty and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to grant amount of ex-gratia.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The relevant provisions of Rule 75 of the Rules of 1996 read as under:-
“75. Ex-gratia grant to the family of a Government servant.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter except as otherwise provided, an ‘ex-
gratia grant’ shall be admissible under sub rule (2) to the family of a Government servant who dies while on duty in one of the following
circumstances namely (a) in an accident,â€
Further sub-Rule 2 provides that under Clause (a) of subRule 1, the amount of ex-gratia grant would be Rs.20,00,000/-. Sub-Rule 3 provides for the
conditions in which, the amount would be admissible, which reads as under:-
“(3) The Ex-gratia grant under sub-rule (2) shall be admissible to the member of family who is entitled for grant of family pension subject to the
fulfilment of the following conditions, namely:-
(a) that the death has either taken place on the sport of the accident or during the course of treatment of injuries caused in such an accident prior to
him/her being declared fit by the authorized medical attendant for resumption of duly;
(b) that a government servant is killed due to his/her official position subject to the condition that there is a directed connection between occurrence of
death and his/her official position;
(c) that it is clearly established on record and certified in the sanction that the death of the government servant has taken place while on duty and this
fact is not subject to any dispute; and Explanation:
(i) an accident means sudden and unavoidable mishap while government servant was on duty;
(ii) in the case of death of a government servant while on duty by violence attributable to service, means death as a result of encounter with criminals
or in the course of confrontation with mob or crowds of an unlawful assembly during agitation, riot or Civil commotion or communal disturbances etc;
(iii) the death of a government servant in the circumstances other than that mentioned in sub-rule (1) shall not be treated as death on duty for this
purpose.â€
A bare look at the provisions clearly indicates that in case, a Government Servant, while on duty, dies in an accident and the death occurs on the spot
or during the course of treatment / injuries in such accident, the person entitled to family pension would be granted ex-gratia grant.
In the present case, the FIR, which has been lodged immediately after the accident i.e. on 7.8.2012 at 1:30 hours when the accident had taken place
on 6.8.2012 at 23:00 hours specifically indicated that the occupants were returning back from Jaipur where they had gone for official work and on
account of accident, Mr. Ummed Singh suffered injuries and when he was taken to hospital he succumbed to the said injuries.
The fact that the FIR, which was lodged on 1:30 a.m. indicating death of Mr. Ummed Singh clearly indicated that the death occurred on account of
the accident, wherein, he had gone on official duty and the Executive Engineer while forwarding the application filed under Rule 75 clearly indicated
that the accident occurred while returning back from official duty resulting in death of Mr. Ummed Singh, which letter and the fact of accident on
official duty, was endorsed by the Superintending Engineer as well as the Additional Chief Engineer, the order passed by the Chief Engineer indicating
non-availability of any material to indicate death of Mr. Ummed Singh while on duty, is ex-facie baseless and in ignorance of the material, which was
available on record including the FIR as well as three forwarding letters given by the Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Additional
Chief Engineer, which material could not have been rejected by the Chief Engineer in a cursory manner as no contrary material was available. In view
thereof, the order dated 24.9.2013 (Annex.12) cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The order dated 24.9.2013 (Annex.12) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are
directed to accord ex-gratia grant under and in terms of Rule 75 of the Rules of 1996 to the petitioner/s within a period of four weeks from today.
The petitioner/s would also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from 1.10.2013 (from the date the recommendation was made by the Executive
Engineer) till the date of actual payment.