Madras High Court
S.Dakshinamurthy vs The Pay And Accounts Officer (Pension) on 4 July, 2024
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
W.P.No.996 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.996 of 2022
and
WMP.No.1063 of 2022
S.Dakshinamurthy ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Pay and Accounts Officer (Pension),
Office of Director of Accounts,
Pay and Accounts Office,
Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),
Ministry of Home Affairs,
PSP - 2, Plot No.14, Rohini Sector - 23,
New Delhi - 110 085.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Adm),
Office of the Inspector General of Police,
Karnataka - Kerala (KKS) Sector,
Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),
Yelahanka, Bengalure, Karnataka - 560 064.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),
Group Centre, Yelahanka,
Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560 064.
... Respondents
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.996 of 2022
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
relating to impugned order of the First respondent in
No.CRPF/19/2448/IP/PA-4 dated 15.10.2020 and the consequential order of
the Second Respondent in No.P.III.2/2020-KKS-EC.VI dated 18.11.2020
and quash the same and direct the respondents to sanction, authorize and
disburse disability pension to the petitioner reckoning category - E of the
Schedule - II of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension Rules),
1939 and grant him all consequential monetary benefits from the date of his
medical invalidation from service.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Manojkumar
For Respondents : Mr. V.Ashokkumar
Central Government Standing Counsel
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 15.10.2020, thereby concluding that the petitioner does not fall under the category 'E' and the consequential order dated 18.11.2020, thereby declaring the petitioner under category 'D'. 2/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.996 of 2022
2. The petitioner has joined in the Central Reserve Police Force as Constable (Driver) in the year 1991 and subsequently, promoted as Head Constable on 02.12.2002. While, he was serving in 18 Battalion stationed at Kulgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on 24.12.2011 at about 22.15 hours, when everybody was sleeping in Motor Transport (M.T) Line of Unit, one constable called Sanjay Kumar Rai of the unit fired from his own Rifle on his colleagues from close proximity on their cot, due to which, three of the petitioner's colleagues died on the sport and the petitioner sustained grievous bullet injuries in his abdomen, right leg and right thigh region, which resulted in amputation of his right knee. Thereafter, the petitioner able to walk with transfemoral prosthesis (artificial limb) and he was issued with a disability certificate dated 17.08.2012, assesssing disability at 80%. A Court of Inquiry was ordered by the Deputy Inspector General (Operations) to enquire into the circumstances under which firing incident took place and the outcome of the said inquiry was issued vide an order dated 26.01.2012. In the said orders, it was reiterated that the injuries sustained by the petitioner is attributable to Government service as the petitioner was on bonafide Government duty and the petitioner will get all 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.996 of 2022 financial benefits, if he invalidated out from service in future due to the injury under Category 'E'. However, the petitioner had submitted an application dated 15.06.2016 requesting for retention in service and he was retained in service and continued in service. Thereafter, on 05.03.2018, he submitted an application intending to proceed on medical invalidation from service. Accordingly, the petitioner was medically invalidated out from service with effect from 30.04.2019 and was granted with invalid pension with effect from 01.05.2019. With regard to sanction of disability pension, the Pay and Accounts Officer, vide order dated 28.07.2021, forwarded pension proposal to the Pay and Accounts officer treating the petitioner's case under Category – 'D', which according to the petitioner was contrary to the findings of the Court of Inquiry proceedings dated 26.01.2012. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the respondents on 15.11.2021 to forward modified proposals to the pension disbursing authority treating his case under Category - 'E'. In response, the third respondent sent a communication to the petitioner stating that the pension proposals were resubmitted, based on the orders which are impugned herein.
4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.996 of 2022
3. The respondents have filed a counter contending that the Court of Inquiry was ordered to enquire into the circumstances under which the firing incident took place and it is not the authority to consider that which category is applicable to the petitioner for receiving pension. The authority concerned, now concluded that the petitioner is entitled for benefits only category 'D' and therefore, this Court cannot interpret it in a different angle. It is further submitted that the petitioner was invalidated only on his personal request. Even though, the Court of Inquiry concluded on 26.01.2012 that the petitioner will get all financial benefits, if he is invalidated out from service due to injury under category 'E'. But, the petitioner had himself exchanged the service as such not entitled for benefit under category 'E'. In fact, the deceased family members was provided benefits only under category 'D'. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in WP.No.13953 of 2021 S.Rajesh Kannan vs. The Inspector General of Police, Karnataka dated 03.11.2022, in which this Court held as follows:
"6. As seen from Category 'D', it is clear that in case of bomb blast cases in public places, the pension order will have to be issued only as per the said category. Category 'E' deals with death or disability arising as a result of attack by or 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.996 of 2022 during action against extremists, anti - social element, etc., or arising out of extremists acts, exploding mines, etc., while on the way to an operational area and other clauses of category 'E' are irrelevant for the purpose of consideration of this case.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner was not attacked by or during action against extremists, anti -social elements or the extremists attacked him or they have exploded mines while the petitioner was on the way to an operational area. Only due to a sudden bomb blast, the petitioner was medically invalidated. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have rightly considered the petitioner's case for the purpose of pension under Category 'D' and not under Category 'E' as sought for by the petitioner. "
It is relevant the extract Clause 'D' and 'E' of Central Civil Service Pension Rules in schedule II Categories 'D' and 'E' as follows:-
"Category 'D' - Death or disability, attributable to acts of violence by terrorists, anti - social elements, etc. whether in their performance of duties or otherwise. Apart from cases of death or injury sustained by personnel of the Central Police Organizations while employed in aid of the civil administration in quelling agitation, riots or revolt by demonstrators, other public servants including police personnel, etc., bomb blasts in public places or transport, indiscriminate shooting incidents in public, etc., would be covered under this category.6/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.996 of 2022 Category 'E' - Death or disability arising as a result of
(a) attack by or during action against extremists, anti-social elements, etc... and (b) enemy action in International was or border skirmishes and warlike situations, including cases which are attributable to (i) extremists acts, exploding mines, etc...., while on way to an operational area (ii) kidnapping by extremists;
and (iii) battle inoculation, as part of training exercises with live ammunition. "
4. On perusal of the Court of inquiry report dated 26.01.2012 concluded that the deceased persons, injured persons and the petitioner fully justified that they were on bonafide Government duty. Sanjay Kumar Rai of the unit fired from his own Rifle on his colleagues, due to which, some injured and some died. Thus, it is an act of brutal and anti social.
The petitioner sustained injuries on his abdomen right leg and right thigh region, due to which, his right leg got amputated. Further, the Court of Inquiry concluded that the petitioner will get all financial benefits if he is invalidated out from service under category 'E'. After amputation of his right leg, the petitioner medically categorized as Shape-V with effect from 24.08.2012 and declared unfit for service as a combatant in Armed Forces and recommended for rehabilitation by the Departmental Rehabilitation 7/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.996 of 2022 Board to refer him for Medical Invalidation Board on 22.02.2016 in order to assess the percentage of disability, where the petitioner is declared permanently unfit for service duly assessing the percentage of disability as 80%. Further, the petitioner made a request for service retention. However, on 05.03.2018, he submitted an application intending to proceed on medical invalidation from service. On receipt of the said request, by order dated 22.04.2019, the petitioner was medically invalidated out from service with effect from 30.04.2019. When the pension proposal in respect of the petitioner under category 'E' was forwarded, the petitioner denied it and submitted that he is eligible only on the category 'D'. Therefore, the judgments citied by the learned counsel for the respondents is completely in different set of facts and not the applicable facts of case. Only on the conclusion of the Court of Inquiry, the petitioner's benefits was fixed under category 'E'. Therefore, the above judgment is not applicable in the case on hand.
5. In view of the above, the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to be quashed and the respondents are 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.996 of 2022 directed to sanction, authorize and disburse the disability pension to the petitioner reckoning category - 'E' of the Schedule - II of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension Rules), 1939 and grant him all consequential monetary benefits from the date of his medical invalidation from service, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. With the above direction, this writ petition stands allowed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.07.2024 Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation/Yes/No av 9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.996 of 2022 To
1. The Pay and Accounts Officer (Pension), Office of Director of Accounts, Pay and Accounts Office, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Ministry of Home Affairs, PSP - 2, Plot No.14, Rohini Sector - 23, New Delhi - 110 085.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Adm), Office of the Inspector General of Police, Karnataka - Kerala (KKS) Sector, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Yelahanka, Bengalure, Karnataka - 560 064.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Group Centre, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560 064.10/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.996 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
av W.P.No.996 of 2022 and WMP.No.1063 of 2022 04.07.2024 11/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis