Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Geeta Ojha vs Union Of India To Be Served Through on 14 July, 2020
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No. 11278/2019
Smt. Geeta Ojha vs. Union of India & Anr.
Gwalior, Dated :14/07/2020
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain Counsel for the Petitioner.
Shri Nakul Khedkar, Proxy Counsel on behalf of Shri Vivek
Khedkar for the respondents.
Heard finally through Video Conferencing. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief(s) :-
1. That, respondents may kindly be directed to pay ex-gratia lumpsum amount of Rs. 25 lacs as per notification dated 5-8-2016 remains vogue at the time of consideration along with interest from date of entitlement upto payment i.e., 14-1-2016;
2. That, in option order Annexure P/1 dated 31-
12-2018 passed by respondents may kindly be modified with regard to payment of interest at the rate of 8% per amount from 14-1-2006 till date of payment;
3. That, any other relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, also be passed along with the cost of the petition.
The facts of the case lies in a very narrow campass and the observations in this order are confined to the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled for interest on the Exgratia compensation which has been paid to her or not? Any findings in this order, shall not reopen the case denovo.
The son of the petitioner namely Vishal Ojha applied for the post of Sub-Inspector, BSF and was selected. He was required to Digitally signed by PRINCEE BARAIYA Date: 15/07/2020 13:08:38 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 11278/2019 Smt. Geeta Ojha vs. Union of India & Anr.
undergo the training. It appears that during the training period, the son of the petitioner fell ill and he was hospitalized and unfortunately he expired on 13-1-2006 due to cardiac arrest. Since, the petitioner was not paid family pension, therefore, She filed W.P. No. 7410 of 2013 which was decided by order dated 14-12-2017 with the following observations :
7. It is also true that the illustrative example of cases covered under different clauses of para 5 of the Department of Pension and Pensioners'Welfare Memorandum dated 11 th September 1998 (hereinafter referred as "Office Memorandum") includes certain exigencies.
Certainly, the illustrative examples cannot be exhaustive and there is always scope for additional example of cases to be incorporated. But at the same time, it also equally holds good that the department is the best authority to decide and judge the illustrative examples by taking fact situation, medical report, job profile of the deceased and type of rigorous regimen he underwent, before arriving to a conclusion. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, it appears that an assessment be made by the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare first regarding the case in hand in holistic manner wherein the department would consider the medical report and other attending circumstances, some of which are referred above to arrive to a conclusion about the claim made by the petitioner for payment of ex-gratia lump sum compensation.
A Writ Appeal No. 52/2018 was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 22-1-2018.
Digitally signed by PRINCEE BARAIYA Date: 15/07/2020 13:08:38
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 11278/2019 Smt. Geeta Ojha vs. Union of India & Anr.
Thereafter, the matter was reconsidered by the respondents, and it was held that although the son of the petitioner had died because of cardiac arrest, but in respectful compliance of Court order dated 22-01-2018 passed in W.P. No. 7419/2013, it was decided that the death of the son of the petitioner may be considered as having occurred due to an accident attributable to Govt. duty, and accordingly an ex gratia compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs was paid to the Petitioner.
Now the only question for consideration is that whether there was any willful default on the part of the respondents in not making the payment of ex gratia compensation at the earliest, thereby making them liable to make payment of interest on the delayed payment or not?
As per Para 11 of Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare Office Memorandum dated 2-9-2008, ex gratia compensation can be paid in the case of death of an employee in the following circumstances :
11(a) Death Occurring due to accidents in the course of performance of duties.
11(b) Death occurring in the course of performance of duties attributable to acts of violence by terrorists, anti-social elements, etc. 11(c) Death occurring (a) enemy action in international war or border skirmishes and (a) action against militants, terrorists, extremists etc. 11(d) Death occurring while on duty in the specified high attitude, inaccessible border posts, Digitally signed by PRINCEE BARAIYA Date: 15/07/2020 13:08:38 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 11278/2019 Smt. Geeta Ojha vs. Union of India & Anr.
etc on account of natural disasters extreme whether conditions.
While deciding W.P. No. 7410/2013, this Court was of the view that the respondents must reconsider the case as to whether it can be covered under the category of death occurring due to accidents in the course of performance of duties or not. Undisputedly, the son of the petitioner suffered high fever and he was hospitalized, but ultimately suffered a cardiac arrest. It is not the case of the petitioner that her son had met with any accident attributable to Govt. duty.
The respondents in their return, have submitted that by way of one time relaxation, the death of the son of the petitioner was considered to be a case of accident attributable to Govt duty.
Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, when the respondents have sympathetically considered the case of the petitioner for grant of ex gratia compensation, then it cannot be held that they deliberately did not pay the ex gratia compensation at the very first instance, thereby making them responsible for making payment of interest on the delayed payment.
So far as the claim of the petitioner for the ex gratia amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs is concerned, undisputedly, the son of the petitioner had expired on 13-1-2006. The case of the petitioner for grant of ex gratia compensation has been reconsidered by adopting a Digitally signed by PRINCEE BARAIYA Date: 15/07/2020 13:08:38 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 11278/2019 Smt. Geeta Ojha vs. Union of India & Anr.
humanitarian ground and it has to be decided on the basis of the memorandum which was in vogue at the time of the death of her son. She cannot claim that since, the amount of ex gratia compensation was enhanced in the year 2016, therefore, she is entitled for the enhanced compensation amount. The amount of ex gratia compensation is a substantial right which cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect. Merely because the case of the petitioner was reconsidered sympathetically subsequent to the Memorandum which came in force in the year 2016, would not make her entitled for the enhanced amount of ex gratia compensation.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Digitally signed by PRINCEE BARAIYA Date: 15/07/2020 13:08:38