Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri B.N. Rangaswamy vs The Deputy Inspector on 26 June, 2019

Author: P.B.Bajanthri

Bench: P.B. Bajanthri

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2019

                             BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI

            WRIT PETITION NO.18793/2014 (S-R)

BETWEEN:

Sri.B.N.Rangaswamy,
S/o Nanje Gowda,
Aged about 43 years,
No.616, EW 5,
12th Main, Yelahanka New Town,
Bangalore - 560 064.                    ... Petitioner

(By Sri.K.Srinivasa, Adv.)


AND:

1.     The Deputy Inspector
       General of Police (Admn.),
       Directorate General,
       Central Reserve Police Force,
       CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
       New Delhi - 110 001.

2.     The Deputy Inspector
       General of Police,
       Central Reserve Police Force,
       Group Centre, Yelahanka,
       Bangalore - 560 064.            ... Respondents

(By Sri.S.R.Dodawad, Adv.)
                              2

      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned
dated 21.04.2009, passed by the R-2 vide Annexure - J to
the Writ Petition etc.,

      This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in
'B' Group, this day, the Court made the following:

                          ORDER

Pursuant to the order dated 18.6.2019 learned counsel for respondents presented various Central Civil Services Rules as a document Nos. 1 to 6. Document No.3 is relating to Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on Government of India revised provisions effective from 1.1.1996, regulating disability pension and extra ordinary family pension under Central Civil Services (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules. The 5th Central Pay Commission, inter alia recommended that for determining the compensation payable for death or disability under different circumstances, the case would be broadly categorised in a five distinct categories which are as under:

3

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, subjected to extreme weather conditions or occupational hazards resulting in death or disability would be examples.
Category 'C' Death or disability due to accidents in the performance of duties. Some examples are accidents while traveling on duty in Government 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, anti- social elements, etc., whether in their performance of duties or otherwise. Apart from case 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 4 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, anti-social element, 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.

2. In terms of the above decision policy of Government of India, learned counsel for respondent vehemently contended that the petitioner is not entitled for disability pension as on the date of accident, he was on leave in other words he was not on duty. Accident happened to the petitioner when he was on leave. Therefore he is not entitled for disability pension. At the best he is entitled to invalidate pension which has been extended to him.

5

3. Definition clause of 'accident' at Section 3(1)of Central Civil Services (Extra Ordinary Pension Rules), 1978 reads as under:

3. For the purpose of these rules, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context -
1. "accident means -
(i) a sudden and unavoidable mishap;
or
(ii) a mishap due to an act of devotion to duty in an emergency arising otherwise than by violence out of and in the course of service;

On perusal of (i) a sudden and unavoidable mishap, it is seen that the petitioner falls under the definition of 'accident' in respect of item No.1(i).

4. Learned counsel for respondents pointed out from the Government of India decision stated supra would not override the Central Civil Services (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules, 1978. Therefore one has to go by definition of 'accident'. In view of the legal position stated supra, contention of the respondents that an employee who met with an accident during the course of 6 employment alone is entitled for disability pension is hereby rejected in view of definition of 'accident' as per Section 3(1)(i) of Central Civil Services (Extra Ordinary Pension Rules), 1978.

5. Accordingly Annexure- J is set aside. Further respondents are hereby directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner for disability pension afresh. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE RS/*