Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Jamuna Pradhan vs Atomic Minerals Directorate For ... on 14 May, 2024
1 O.A. No. 051/00111/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT RANCHI
O.A. No. 051/00111/2024
Date of order:- 14.05.2024
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER [J]
1. Jamuna Pradhan aged about 54 years wife of Late Rituraj Pradhan,
resident of village Bentkalsai, P.O. and P.S. Kendmundi, Rajnagar,
Serailkela- Kharsawan, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand 831002
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. Union of India through the Director, Atomic Minerals Directorate for
Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic Energy, Govt. of
Patna India. having office at 10-153-156, AMD Complex, Begumpet, P.O.
Bench
and P.S. Begumpet Hyderabad Telangana-500016.
2. Regional Director, Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration &
Research, having office at Khasmahal, P.O. and P.S. Tatanagar,
Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand - 831002.
........Respondents
For Applicant:- Shri Akash Bhushan, Advocate
For Respondents:- Shri V.K. Sahu, Sr. Panel Counsel
ORDER
AS PER:- AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER[JUDICIAL]
1. Grievance of applicant as projected by Shri Akash Bhushan, Ld. counsel for applicant seeking direction to respondents to release ex gratia payment on unfortunate demise of her husband Late Rituraj Pradhan working as Technician-F in Atomic Minerals Directorate for exploration and research, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India (hereinafter for brevity referred as AMD).
2. It is also the case of applicant that her husband was appointed on the post of Watchman in AMD. On 16.09.2019 while working as Technician-F in AMD and admittedly on official duty met with an 2 O.A. No. 051/00111/2024 accident on 16.09.2019 at the official drill site during fishing operation. Respondents have constituted a committee to conduct an inquiry on the accidental death of husband of the applicant wherein vide report date 21.05.2020 (Annexure-A/1) committee categorically held that deceased employee was on official duty and he has sustained fatal injuries on the left side of his ear and immediate effect was that he became unconscious and was brought to the nearest hospital in Bistupur where he was declared dead.
3. Applicant has also made averment in the present OA that her son Patna Bench has filed an application for compassionate and same was rejected vide order dated 02.11.2021. So also applicant has made averments that she has filed an application dated 26.12.2023(Annexure-A/4) to release ex gratia payment on death of her husband while on official duty.
4. The applicant had further stated that respondents have not responded to the application for ex gratia payment and application under RTI was also filed and PIO has issued order dated 27.03.2023 (Annexure- A/3) wherein the claim for grant of ex gratia payment has been admitted but at the same time it is informed that proposals are under examination and shall be referred to the competent authority. The column 2 of order dated 27.03.2023 also stipulates that case of applicant for ex gratia payment is with AMD Headquarters, Hyderabad and currently the file is pending for more than three years.
5. Ld. counsel for applicant vociferously canvassed that applicant is widow of deceased employee who died while discharging official duties and same is not disputed by respondents as evident from the report dated 3 O.A. No. 051/00111/2024 21.05.2020 and order dated 27.03.2023 provided by Public Information Officer but respondents are sitting tight over the matter and neither case for compassionate appointment has been considered nor respondents are responding to the application of ex gratia payment.
6. Shri Akash Bhushan, Ld. counsel for applicant after arguing for some time submits that representation dated 26.12.2023 pending before competent authority and it will suffice if direction is issued to the respondents to consider the case of applicant for ex gratia payment in accordance with the object of policy for grant of compassionate Patna Bench appointment issued vide OM dated 04.08.2016 by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Governtment of India duly endorsed by respondents vide endorsement dated 23.08.2016.
7. Shri Akash Bhushan also submits that applicant is entitled for ex gratia payment, emolument compensation under para 12.1 to the tune of Rupees twenty five lakh along with interest.
8. Shri V.K. Sahu, Sr. Panel counsel for Central Government appearing for all the respondents fairly submits that if applicant's representations are pending, the same shall be considered in a time bound manner as expeditiously as possible.
9. Heard with consent of ld. counsel for the parties at admission stage. The legal point for consideration in the present OA relates to grant of ex gratia payment to wife of deceased employee died while performing bonafide official duty.
10. The relevant para 12.1 of OM dated 04.08.2016 endorsed by respondents on 23.08.2016 is reproduced as under:- 4 O.A. No. 051/00111/2024
12.1 The amount of ex gratia lump sum compensation available to the families of Central Government Civilian employees, who die in the performance of their bona fide official duties under various circumstances shall be revised as under:
Circumstances Amount Death occurring due to accidents in course of 25 lakh performance of duties [Emphasis supplied]
11. So far as the present case at hand, the husband of applicant died on 16.09.2019 while performing official duties and met with a fatal accident Patna Bench and the fact is not disputed as evident from the pleadings of the documents issued by respondents so also under RTI, Public Information Officer informed on 27.03.2023 and relevant para 1 & 2 are reproduced as under:-
S. No. माांगी गई जानकारी Information sought जानकारी सुसज्जित Information furnished 1 Detail status of ex-gratia payment for death The proposal is under on duty due and admissible in respect of my examination and shall father ie late Shri Rituraj Pradhan, be referred to Designation- Technician F, EC no- 5621 Competent Authority 2 Name and officer details please be The case is with AMD provided of the officer may please be Head Quarters provided where the above file is currently Hyderabad pending and date from which the file is pending with that officer as it is more than 3 years now [Emphasis supplied]
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajanna Vs. UOI, 1995 SCC Supl (2) 601, on entitlement to the ex-gratia payment has held in para 10 to 15 reads as:-5 O.A. No. 051/00111/2024
10. In Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja & Ors., AIR 1958 C 881, the general rule was indicated thus :-
" As a rule, the employment of a workman does not commence until he has reached the place of employment and does not continue when he has left the place of employment, the journey to and from the place of employment being excluded. It is now well-settled, however, that this is subject to the theory of notional extension of the employer's premises so as to include an area which the workman passes and repasses in going to and in leaving the actual place of work. 'Mere may be some reasonable extension in both time and place and a workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his employer's premises. The facts and circumstances of each case will have to be examined very carefully in order to determine whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of a workman, keeping in view at all times this theory of notional extension."
Patna Bench ".....It is well settled that when a workman is on is on a public road or a public place or on a public transport he is there as anyother member of the public and is not there in the course of ins employment unless the very nature of his employment makes it necessary for him to be there. A workman is not in the course of his employment from the moment he leaves his home and is on his way to his work. He certainly is in the course of his employment if he reaches the place of work or a point or an area which comes within the theory of national extension, outside of which the employer is not liable to pay compensation for any accident happening to him............"
(Para 8) (emphasis supplied) In the facts of that case the employer was held not liable only because the accident occurred when the workman was travelling in a boat not provided by the employer but a public transport in which any other member of the public could travel and it was not incumbent on the workman to adopt that mode of travel. Applying the test in the present case, it is clear that since the appellant was travelling in the official SPG vehicle in which he was required to travel from the staff quarters to the South Block, that vehicle not being available to anyone other than the SPG personnel, the appellant was at a place or a point or an area which came within the theory of notional extension of the official premises for performance of "actual VIP security duty". In other words, that official SPG vehicle was a notional extension of the official premises and, therefore, the appellant was deemed to be on actual VIP security duty, while travelling in it from the staff quarters to the South Block in these circumstances.
11. In Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahommed Issak, 1970 (1) SCR 869, the test for this pur- pose was indicated as under :-
6 O.A. No. 051/00111/2024
"To come within the Act the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment. The words "in the course of the employment" mean "in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it." The words "arising out of employment" are understood to mean that "during the, course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which unless engaged in die duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered." In other words there must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment. The expression "arising out of employment" is again not confined to the more nature of the employment. The expression applies to employment as such to its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents. If by reason of any of these factors the workman is brought within the scene of special danger the injury would be one which arises out of employment". To put it differently if the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of the employment, the claim for compensation must succeed. unless of course the workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act............".
Patna Bench (Pages 872-873) (emphasis supplied) This indicates that there must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment- or the accident must be related to a risk which is an incident to the employment. The House of Lords in Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co. v. Highley, [1917] A.C. 352, relied on in the above decision, indicated the test as under:
"'There is, however, in my opinion, one test which is always at any rate applicable, because it arises upon the very words of the statute, and it is generally of some real assistance. It is this : Was it part of the injured person's employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do that which caused his injury? If )*a, the accident arose out of his employment.............."
(emphasis supplied)
12. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 33, Fourth Edition, the summary is stated thus:
"490. ACCIDENT TRAVELLING TO AND FROM WORK. The course of employment normally begins when the employee reaches his place of work. To extend it to the journey to and from work it must be shown that, in travelling by the particular method and route and at the particular time, the employee was fulfilling an express or implied term of his contract of service. One way of doing this is to establish that the home is the employee's base from which it is his duty to work and that he was travelling by direct route from his home to a place where he was required to work, but that is only one way of showing this; the real question at issue is whether on the particular journey he was travelling in the performance of a duty, or whether the journey was incidental to the performance of that duty and not merely preparatory to the performance of it. If the place where the accident occurs is a private road or on the employer's property, the accident is in the course of the em- ployment because he is then at the 7 O.A. No. 051/00111/2024 scene of the accident by reason only of his em- ployment and he has reached the sphere of his employment. The test is whether the employee was exposed to the particular risk by reason of his employment or whether he took the same risks as those incurred by any member of the public using the highway."
(Pages 369-370) "496. ACCIDENTS TRAVELLING T0 OR FROM WORK IN EMPLOYER' S TRANSPORT.
An accident happening while an employed earner is, with the express or implied permission of his employer, travelling as a passenger to or from his place of work In any vehicle which is being operated by or on behalf of his employer, or which is provided by some other person in pursuance of arrangements made with his employer, must be deemed to arise out of and in the course of his employment, even though the employed earner is not obliged to travel by that vehicle, if it would have been deemed so to have arisen if he had been under an obligation to travel by it provided that the vehicle is not operated in the ordinary course of a public transport service." Patna Bench (Page 374) (emphasis supplied)
13.There can be no doubt that there was a causal relationship between the accident in which the appellant sustained the injuries and his employment in the SPG for actual VEP security duty; and it was an incident of his employment to travel from the staff quarters to the South Block in the SPG vehicle according to the official ar- rangement. In our opinion, the meaning of the expression "actual VIP security duty" in the above circular must be the same as that of the words "in the course of the employment"
in the Workmen's Compensation Act; and, therefore, the test for determining the liability for payment under the circular should also be the same. In our view, the tribunal was in error in making an unduly strict and narrow construction of the expression used in the circular.
14.We are constrained to observe that the concerned authorities must adopt a humane approach and construe the circular liberally to advance its object instead of taking such a rigid and pedantic stand. Unless properly implemented, the scheme in the circular would be frustrated resulting in failure to achieve the avowed purpose.
15.Consequently, the appeal is allowed with Rs. 10,000/- as costs.
[Emphasis supplied]
13. In view of above submissions and provision of policy for grant of ex gratia payment to applicant on sudden demise of her husband while performing bona fide official duty.
8 O.A. No. 051/00111/2024
14. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that principle of natural justice will be met and hereby directs respondents/competent authority to consider pending representation, so also granting liberty to the applicant to file an updated representation for payment of ex gratia payment. It is also directed that respondents will take humane approach in order to advance object of policy for ex gratia payment and shall consider and grant ex gratia payment accordance with applicable policy and law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court hereinabove. Respondents are directed to consider representation of applicant for payment of ex gratia payment Patna Bench within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
15. In view of above, OA stands disposed of at admission stage itself as indicated herein above. No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(Ajay Pratap Singh) Judicial Member Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna.
du/-