Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Coram: Hon Ble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik vs The Union Of India on 9 February, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
(Reserved on 29.01.2016)
O.A No. 740-PB-2012 Date of decision -09.02.2016.
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)
Bina widow of late Jagdeva, resident of House No. 52, Old quarter, M.F. Ferozepur Cantt.
APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Rohit Seth.
VERSUS
1. The Union of India, Ministry of Defence through the Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi.
2. Officer In-charge Military Farm, Ferozepur Cantt.
3. Officer In-charge Military Farm, Pathankot Cantt.
RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: Sh. G.S. Sathi.
ORDER
HONBLE MS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A):-
The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Acts, 1985 seeking following relief:-
i) declaration may be issued to the effect that the order dated 15.02.2012 whereby the request for ex-gratia lump-sum compensation of Rs. 10 lacs on account of the death of late Sh. Jagdeva husband of the applicant was declined is illegal and unconstitutional and liable to be quashed.
ii) Directions may kindly be issued to the respondents for grant of ex-gratia lump-sum compensation to the applicant.
2. Averment has been made in the O.A that the applicant is widow of Jagdeva who was working as Farm Hand in the Military Farm Pathankot Cantt. Sh. Jagdeva died on 17.11.2010 while in service. On that date, he felt acute pain in chest body and his colleagues took him to the hospital but on the way he expired. The application submitted by his colleague to officer in-charge, Military Farm Pathankot Cantt. regarding this fact is enclosed (Annexure A-1). Death Certificate is enclosed (Annexure A-2). Also, that the applicant had spent a lot on the treatment of her husband and medical papers regarding the same are in her possession.
3. It is further stated that as per Rules relating to ex-gratia lump-sum, family of the employee is entitled for ex-gratia lump-sum compensation of Rs. 10 lakh in case the person dies due to accident in the course of performance of duty. The applicant had filed an application dated 05.12.2011 seeking ex-gratia payment (Annexure A-3), however, her request was denied vide order dated 15.02.2012 (Annexure A-4). Hence, the present O.A.
4. This O.A was earlier allowed vide order dated 03.07.2013 wherein para 16 reads as follow:-
16. The applicant is held entitled to the ex-gratia lump sum payment of Rs. 10 Lakhs. The respondents shall pay the amount within one month from today. This time-fixture has come about in view of the fact that the death of the husband of the applicant occurred in the year 2010. In addition thereto, the applicant shall also be entitled to the interest @ 5%. The award of interest is in respectful accord with the view obtained by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in O.A No. 804/PB/2010
5. RA No. 62/2013 and MAs were filed and vide order dated 31.01.2014 the RA was allowed. Para 10 of the said order reads as follow:-
10. Since the matter has wide repercussions and legal plea has been taken on behalf of the Department that cases of compensation are to be considered under the Workmens Compensation Act and not by the CAT and this aspect has not been adjudicated upon as counter reply was not filed on behalf of the respondents due to negligence on the part of the Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel, I am of the view that review of the order dated 03.07.2013 is merited and the case should be heard afresh by a Division Bench of the Tribunal. Accordingly, MAs No. 1050 & 1051/2013 and RA No. 62/2013 are allowed. Matter may be placed before the Honble HOD/M(J) on the administrative side for constituting DB to hear the matter afresh.
6. Written statement was thereafter filed on behalf of the respondents wherein facts have not been disputed. It is however stated that as per CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, lump sum compensation can only be sanctioned where an accident is involved while a government servant is performing the duty whereas the claim for compensation in the instant case can be filed under Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 to the competent authority and the jurisdiction of this Tribunal for compensation is barred as specific authority has been provided for this specific purpose. Compensation cases such as that of the applicant would not fall within jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It has further been stated that sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 provides, inter-alia, that if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of chapter II of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 3 enunciates that no compensation shall be payable to a workman in respect of any disease unless the disease is directly attributable to a specific injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. It is also stated that there are numerous judgments of the Supreme Court on the issue. In the case of Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak 1969 ACJ 422 (SC), the Honble Apex Court held that in order to sustain a claim under the Act, the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment it was held that The words "in the course of employment" mean in the course of work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it. The words "arising out of the 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 the 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 mere 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.
7. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties were heard.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant drew attention to provision in regard to ex-gratia lump-sum compensation to the families of Central Government Civilian Employees who die in harness. As per O.M dated 02.09.2008 , it has been prescribed that when death occurred due to accident in the course of performance of duties, Rs. 10 Lakh would be paid as Ex-gratia lump sum compensation. Learned counsel stated that compensation had been awarded by Tribunal vide judgment dated 03.07.2013 placing reliance on judgments of the Karnataka High Court and Kerala High Court cited therein and also the judgment in O.A No. 804/PB/2010 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has recorded the finding that an employee who died of cardiac arrest during the course of the employment would also be entitled to award of ex-gratia lump sum amount of Rs. 10 lakh. Learned counsel also stated that the applicant was not debarred from approaching the Tribunal for seeking lump sum compensation in view of the settled law that where a matter can be filed before different forums the applicant has option to choose the forum. In this regard he referred the case Awadhesh Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2013(4) SCT 587 where it has been held that:-
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226-Adminstrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Sections 10 and 28-writ jurisdiction-when regularization/absorption and/or reinstatement/continuance is sought in the service of the Eastern Railway, the Central Administrative Tribunal will have the jurisdiction and as per provisions of Section 28 of the Act of 1985, the matter can also be filed before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may be Section 28 does not oust such jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal-It gives option to the workman to choose the forum-High Court will have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the merits of the case directing absorption/regularization or reinstatement/continuance in service of such employees with respect to the affairs of the controversies as contemplated within the purview of the Act of 1985.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that provision for ex-gratia lump sum compensation was not applicable in the present case keeping in view the full text of para 5 of O.M dated 02.09.2008 that reads as under:-
5. Ex- gratia lumpsum compensation to families of Central Employees who die in harness.
The families of Central Government Civilian employees who die in harness in the performance of their bonafide official duties under various circumstances, shall be paid the following ex-gratia lumpsum compensation.
(a) Death occurring due to accidents Rs 10 Lakh in the course of performance of duties.
(b) xxxxxx
(c) xxxxxxx
(d) Xxxxx The compensation is intended to provide an additional insurance and security to employees, who are required to function under trying circumstances and are exposed to different kinds of risks in the performance of their duties. Learned counsel stated that the applicants husband was not working under trying circumstances and exposed to different kinds of risks in the performance of their duties. Hence the applicant could not claim ex-gratia lump sum compensation under this provision. She could, however, approach appropriate authority for seeking compensation under Workmens Compensation Act, 1923.
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. Judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in O.A No. 804-PB-2010 has also been seen. In that case, the labourer had died of cardiac arrest when he was unloading the goods from truck and such heavy exertion could certainly cause the collapse of the labourer who died shortly thereafter. The other judgments cited by the applicant all relate to the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. In the present case, the applicant has stated in the O.A that she had spent a lot on the treatment of her husband and medical papers are in her possession. Apparently, husband of the applicant had a history of illness. He was working as a Farm Hand and his death on the job due to cardiac arrest could not be considered to be an accident meriting compensation under the provision of O.M dated 02.09.2008 relating to Ex gratia lump-sum compensation to families of Central Government Civilian employees who die in harness. The job of a Farm Hand is a routine one and does not involve trying circumstances or risk in the performance of duty. Hence, we conclude that there is no merit in this O.A and same is rejected.
11. No costs.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) (RAJWANT SANDHU) MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A) Dated: 09.02.2016 `jk 1 O.A No. 740/PB/2012