Punjab-Haryana High Court
Promila Devi vs Union Of India And Others on 18 October, 2011
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
C.W.P. No.1399 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.1399 of 2011 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 18.10.2011
Promila Devi PETITIONER
VERSUS
Union of India and others RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Shri Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Joshi, Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India
for respondents 1 to 3.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The husband of the petitioner Constable Suresh Kumar was enlisted in C.R.P.F. He was posted in Assam and involved in active Insurgency Operations. The Battalion to which he was attached, was moved for operations against the Naxalites. During the period when he was undergoing pre-induction training to the anti-naxalites operation, he died on account of Myo Cardial Infarction. The petitioner who is his widow, made a prayer for extraordinary pension on account of the fact that he had died due to an act which was attributable to government service. The claim was based on Rule 3-A of the Central Civil Services (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 which is extracted here below :- C.W.P. No.1399 of 2011 -2-
"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.
(2) There shall be a casual connection between,
(a) disablement and Government service ; and
(b) death and Government service, for attributability or aggravation to be conceded. Guidelines in this regard are given in the Appendix which shall be treated as part and parcel of these Rules."
The respondents did not grant the claim of the petitioner which has led to the filing of the instant petition and in pursuance to the notice of motion, the respondents have submitted their reply wherein it has been admitted that the death of the husband of the petitioner took place on account of acute extensive anterior wall Myocardial Infarction, but it was denied that the same was attributable to government service and the death was attributed to a natural cause. The denial of the benefit was thus sought to be justified.C.W.P. No.1399 of 2011 -3-
On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the benefit has wrongly been denied to the petitioner. There is indeed no doubt about the fact which stands admitted, that the petitioner had died on account of the Myo Cardial Infarction, but the same occurred when the petitioner was undergoing pre- induction training for anti-naxalite operation. It is thus, a cause which is directly attributable to government service, as the petitioner was on active duty at that particular point of time and in all probability he suffered Myo Cardial Infarction on account of aggravated demands of duty and rigors of training.
A Division Bench of this Court in Kamlesh Devi v. State of Punjab 2002(1) S.C.T. 929, observed as follows :-
"The word "accident" also occurs in Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 but here too it has not been defined and it has come to acquire a settled meaning and denotes some unexpected event happening without design even though there may be negligence on the part of the person meeting with an accident. It would, therefore, include not only such obvious occurrence as collisions, tripping over floor obstacles, fall of roof, but also less obvious ones causing injury such as strain which causes rupture, exposure to a draught causing chill, exertion causing apoplexy and shock causing neurasthenia. It would also include a heart attack which is an unexpected event happening without design."
To the same effect is the judgment of this Court in Smt.Santosh v. Union of India and others 2010(1) S.C.T. 518, wherein it was acknowledged that suffering a heart attack while performing the bona fide final duty in hostile terrain would be considered to be a valid ground to grant the benefit under Rule 3-A. C.W.P. No.1399 of 2011 -4- Likewise, in P.M.Annamma v. Union of India and others 2008(3) S.C.T. 707, a Division Bench of this Court observed similarly.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is accepted and the petitioner is held entitled to the benefits of the extraordinary family pension and other allied benefits, as contemplated in terms of Rule 3-A. The needful be done as expeditiously, as possible, preferably within four months.
(MAHESH GROVER)
October 18, 2011 JUDGE
GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO