Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Arjun Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 13 August, 2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.2011/2015
Reserved on:06.08.2018
Pronounced on:13.08.2018
Hon'ble Ms. Praveen Mahajan, Member (A)
Arjun Singh
PIS No.88820006
Retired Cook of Delhi Police
Aged about 54 years
S/o Shri Roop Singh Bhandari
R/o V-2/3, Police Colony
Andrews Ganj, Delhi-49. ... Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
Commissioner of Police
PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi.
2. DCP (South Distt.)
PS Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
3. Pay & Account Officer
PAO (Delhi Police-II)
Man Singh Road, New Delhi. ...Respondents
(By Advocate:Ms. Sumedha Sharma)
ORDER
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant was working as a Cook in the Security Unit of Delhi Police in the year 2005 when he suffered severe illness, purportedly, due to working conditions of the establishment. It is stated in the OA that the applicant took medical treatment for a long time but his condition did not improve and he was declared to have 72 % disability vide Medical Certificate dated 29.11.2010 (Annexure A-3). Since the percentage of disability/fitness of the applicant was available in the form of Medical Certificate, he requested for grant of Invalid and Extraordinary Pension. The Medical Board examined the same 2 and the report dated 01.02.2013 assessed him completely and permanently incapacitated for further retentionin service. Vide order dated 28.02.2013, the applicant was invalidated from Delhi Police Service on medical grounds.
2. The applicant states that he got to know from the PPO that he was not granted Extraordinary Pension as per CCS (EOP) Rules, 1939. Hence, he applied for the same w.e.f.28.10.2013. His request was rejected on 21.11.2013 stating that he has already been granted invalid pension. The applicant again sought Extraordinary Pension by way of another application, which met the same fate by way of rejection order dt. 18.07.2014. Aggrieved the applicant has filed the present OA praying the following :-
"1. To quash and set aside the impugned Order dt.21.11.2013 and Order dt.18.7.2014.
2. To direct the respondent to get the applicant medically examined from the Special Medical Board constituted to medically examine the applicant as required for grant of Extraordinary Pension as per CCS (EOP) rules.
3. To direct the respondent to grant Extraordinary Pension as per CCS (EOP) rules w.e.f.28.2.2013 with all consequential benefits including arrears.
4. To award costs in favor of the applicant and pass any order or orders which this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem just and equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case."
3. In their counter, the respondents state that the applicant has become completely and permanently incapacitated due to Cervical Myelopathy. Hence, he has been retired from Delhi Police services on medical grounds under Rule 38 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and granted invalid pension vide PPO No.703321302801 dated 08.07.2013.
4. The learned counsel for applicant, Shri Anil Singal strenuously argued that the applicant was not suffering from any disease at the time he joined the service and his condition today is totally attributable to lack of proper 3 service conditions in Delhi Police, hence, the applicant is eligible for grant of extraordinary pension, as per rules. In support of this contention, he relied upon a decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the Union of India & Ors. Vs. Angad Singh Titaria (Civil Appeal No.11208/2011) decided on 24.04.2015.
5. The learned counsel for respondents, Ms. Sumedha Sharma rebutted the arguments of the applicant stating that extraordinary pension can only be granted in case it is established that the medical condition of the Govt. Servant is on account of improper service conditions. She drew my attention to the representation dated 23.07.2012 of the applicant, wherein he himself had requested only for grant of invalid pension on medical grounds. In the same application he had also requested that his son may be appointed on compassionate grounds to look after his family and to enable him to continue his treatment in future. She submitted that this request of the applicant was duly considered, accepted and granted by the respondents. Not only was invalid pension granted to the applicant but the respondents also appointed his son as Constable on compassionate grounds. She produced before the Bench a report of Medical Board from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. Their findings are reproduced below :-
"The Medical Board to examine Shri Arjun Singh Cook (MTS) met on 03.01.2013. Following experts were present:-
Dr. L.N.Gupta - Neurosurgeon
Dr. K.S. Anand - Neurologist
The patient is an operated case of cervical discectomy and placement of spinal cord stimulator (operated upon at AIIMS, New Delhi in 2005 & 2008).
On examination the patient is fully conscious, oriented well. Higher mental functions and cranial nerves are intact. He is having sensory motor quadripares is LL>UL with marked spasticity and ataxia. Diminished sensory level below T4 and pastens column involvement.4
He can not walk without support and cannot perform daily activities and skilled physical work.
Hence he is unfit for the present job of Cook and recommended for invalid pension on medical ground."
6. I have gone through the facts of the case and considered the rival contentions made by both sides carefully.
7. The applicant was appointed as a Cook in Delhi Police in the year 1982 and continued to work there for almost three decades. He applied to the respondents for invalid pension in the year, 2011 stating that he was suffering from cervical myelopathy in his body and requested for invalid pension on medical grounds. This genuine demand of the applicant was considered by the respondents. It is not mentioned in the OA that the applicant, during his long service as Cook, ever represented against the poor service conditions in the department. A perusal of the Extraordinary Pension Rules and some of the categories where such benefits would be admissible, are specified in the Extraordinary Pension Rules. The cases falling under CCS (Extraordinary) Pension Rules, 1939 have been categorised in five distinct categories and benefits admissible are specified under each category:-
"Category „A‟ - Death or disability due to natural causes not attributable to Government service, Examples would be chronic ailments like heart and renal diseases, prolonged illness, accidents while not on duty, etc. Category „B‟- Death or disability due to causes which are accepted as attributable to or aggravated by Government service. Diseases contracted because of continued exposure to a hostile work environment, subject to extreme weather conditions or occupational hazards resulting in death or disability would be examples.
Category „C‟-Death or disability, due to accident in the performance of duties. Some examples are accidents while travelling on duty in Government‟s vehicles or public transport, a journey on duty is performed by service aircraft, mishaps at sea, electrocution while on duty, etc. Category „D‟ - Death or disability, attributable to acts of violence by terrorists, antisocial 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 5 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.
Category „E‟ - Death or disability arising as a result of (a) attack by or during action against extremists, antisocial elements, etc... and (b) enemy action in international war 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.‟‟
8. In my opinion, the disability, which the applicant is suffering from today and which has been diagnosed as cervical Myelopathy, does not come in any of the five categories/conditions listed above. Apparently, what the Government had in mind was the cases of death or disability caused due to accident in the performance of duties, injury sustained by personnel during duty, disability arising as a result of continued exposure to a hostile work environment, or occupational hazards resulting in death or disability etc. to cite just a few example.
9. Extraordinary Pension claimed by the applicant, as the name suggests, can only be invoked in quite extraordinary conditions, which as per the facts of this case, do not exist. The respondents have already sanctioned invalid pension to the applicant and given appointment to his son as Constable in the department. Though the applicant is suffering from an unfortunate condition, but in my opinion he has been adequately compensated, as per rules, by the respondents. Hence, there is no ground for the Tribunal to intervene in the matter. The OA is, thus, dismissed, as being devoid of merit. No costs.
(Praveen Mahajan) Member (A) /uma/ 6