| |
CDJ 2026 Ker HC 283
|
| Court : High Court of Kerala |
| Case No : WP(C) No. 22189 of 2021 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM |
| Parties : Sobhana Mohan Versus Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Defense Government Of India, South Block, New Delhi & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: U. Balagangadharan, R. Pradeep Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Suvin R. Menon, Senior Panel Counsel. |
| Date of Judgment : 10-02-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Comparative Citation:
2026 KER 12789,
|
| Judgment :- |
|
1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to consider sanctioning ex gratia lump sum compensation of Rs. 35 lacs to the petitioner as mandated under Ext.P1 to Ext.P2.
2. The petitioner is the widow of Pioneer (Sepoy) Mohandas K.N. of the General Reserve Engineer Force, who died while in service due to cardio-pulmonary arrest. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the non-sanctioning of ex gratia lump sum compensation as provided under the Liberalised Scheme of payment of ex gratia lump sum compensation to families of Central Government Civilian employees, who die in harness. The petitioner's husband was working in the General Reserve Engineer Force under the Ministry of Defence, which is also known as Border Roads Organisation and he had 27 years of service. The deceased was posted to 1641 Pioneer Company (GREF) in Jammu & Kashmir and later, deployed at 57 RCC (GREF), a unit located in Jammu & Kashmir, which is classified as a hard area/moderate hostile area as per the area classification of the GREF authorities. While the deceased was on sentry duty on the front gate of the unit located at Battal, he suffered a heart attack on 13.11.2017 due to adverse and inclement weather in the said hard area. Though he was shifted to the nearby hospital, he breathed his last on 13.11.2017 at about 19.30 hrs. It is submitted that the petitioner's husband did not have any history of cardiac problems, hypertension or any other related analogous complications. The petitioner, relying on Exts.P2 and P3, submits that the petitioner's husband is entitled to ex gratia lump sum compensation. Based on the same, an application was submitted, and the same was forwarded to the concerned authorities as per Ext.P4. The said request has been rejected as per Ext.P6, stating that the death did not occur in any of the circumstances mentioned in Ext.P1 office memorandum, and the death was due to heart attack, and therefore, the petitioner's husband is not entitled to any ex gratia lump sum compensation. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner relies on Exts.P7 to P8 judgments and also the judgments in Ms.Rajni Devi Sharma v. Union of India and others (2016 0 Supreme (HP) 2010), Ram Devi v. Director General, BSF & Others (2015 0 Supreme (Del) 680), Sangita Tomar v. Union of India and others (2022 0 Supreme (Del) 1218) and the judgment of Mst. Param Pal Singh through Father v. National Insurance Company and another, (2012 0 Supreme (SC) 939) in support of the contentions.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 4, wherein it is submitted that ex-gratia lump sum compensation granted as per Exts.P1 and P2 is for employees who die in the performance of their bonafide official duties under the circumstances mentioned therein. It is submitted that in accordance with Govt. of India, Min. of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensioners (Deptt of Pension & Pensioner's Welfare) OM No.45/55/97-P&PW(C) dated 11.09.1998, amended from time to time and OM No.F No.38/37/2016-P&PW (A) (i) dated 04.08.2016, the amount of ex- gratia lump sum compensation available to the families of Central Government Civilian employees, who die in the performance of their bonafide official duties under various circumstances as under:-
“(a) Death occurring due to accidents in the course of performance of duties.
(b) Death in the course of performance of duties attributed to acts of violence by terrorists, anti-social elements, etc.
(c) Death occurring in border skirmishes and action against militants, terrorists, extremists, sea pirates.
(d) Death occurring while on duty in the specified high altitude, inaccessible border posts, etc on account of natural disasters, extreme weather conditions.
(e) Death occurring during enemy action in war or such war-like engagements, which are specifically notified by the Ministry of Defence and death occurring during the evacuation of Indian Nationals from a war-torn zone in a foreign country.”
4. It is further stated that since the petitioner's husband died due to cardiopulmonary arrest and cause of death is not covered under the conditions stated as above and as the petitioner's husband was not deployed either at a specified high altitude area or in inaccessible border post, there is no merit in the claim made by the petitioner for grant of ex- gratia lump sum compensation.
5. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner's husband died while posted in Jammu & Kashmir due to a heart attack. Ext.P1 is a Government Order issued on 11.09.1998, wherein the Government of India had decided that employees who sustained injuries or contract diseases or died or disabled or incapacitated on account of causes, which are accepted as attributable to or aggravated by government service, are eligible for certain special benefits. As per Ext.P1 Office Memorandum, 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 lump sum compensation.
(a) Death occurring due to accidents in the
course of performance of duties
| Rs.5.00 lakhs
| (b) Death occurring in the course of performance
of duties attributable to acts of violence by
terrorists, anti-social elements, etc.
| Rs.5.00 lakhs
| (c) Death occurring during (a) enemy action in
international war or border skirmishes: and (b)
action against militants, terrorists, extremists, etc
| Rs. 7.50 lakhs
|
The Annexe attached to Ext.P1 office memorandum deals with condition governing the payment of the ex gratia lump sum compensation, wherein Clause 1 reads as follows:
“The main condition to be satisfied for the payment of the ex gratia lumpsum compensation in the specified circumstances is that the death of the employee concerned should have occurred in the actual performance of bonafide official duties. In other words, a causal connection should be established between the occurrence of death and government service.”
The illustrative example appendix to Ext P1 office memorandum illustrates death attributable to accident while on duty, also to include death as a result of an accident of personnel on field duties. So, to get the benefit of the ex gratia lump sum compensation, the death should happen in the performance of their bonafide official duties, and in case of death due to accidents in the course of performance of duties, Rs.5 lakhs is given as ex gratia lump sum compensation. The said office memorandum was modified by Ext.P2, and the amount of compensation was increased to Rs.25 lakhs. The petitioner would submit that the death of her husband was due to heart attack while performing his official duties and would qualify for payment of ex gratia lump sum compensation as per Clause (a) of Ext P1 which provides for compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs, which was increased to Rs.25 lakhs as per Ext P2, for death occurring due to accidents in the course of performance of duties and since the death was due to heart attack while in the course of performance of sentry duty in Jammu and Kashmir. But in the counter affidavit, the stand of respondents 1 to 4 is that the death due to heart attack is not covered as the deceased employee was not deployed at either specified high altitude area or inaccessible border post. I am of the view that the said stand taken by the department cannot be accepted since Clause (d) of Ext P1 provides compensation in case of death occurring while on duty in the specified high altitude, inaccessible border posts, etc. on account of natural disasters, extreme weather conditions but the petitioner is claiming the benefit of Clause (a) of Ext.P1 Government order which provides compensation for death occurring due to accidents in the course of performance of official duties. So, the question to be considered is whether the death of the petitioner’s husband due to heart attack will come within the purview of Clause (a) of Ext.P1, which entitles her for grant of ex gratia lump sum compensation.
7. A similar issue was considered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Ext.P7 judgment in Pushpa Devi v. Union of India and Others (CWP No.6894 of 2015). In the said case, the petitioner’s husband expired due to heart failure while working as a driver in the Border Roads Organisation, while posted in Jammu and Kashmir. The claim for ex gratia lump sum compensation was declined on account of the fact that the death had occurred due to heart failure and not on account of service. Rejecting the said contention raised by the official respondents, the claim was allowed, holding that the word “accident” would also include persons dying of heart attack, which is an unexpected event that happens without design. Though an appeal was preferred against the same, by Ext.P8 judgment, the same was also dismissed, holding that as the deceased was working in high altitude and even his employment with Border Road Organisation itself is suggestive of hazardous duty at high altitude, the petitioner therein is entitled to ex gratia lump sum compensation. Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Apex Court, and the same was also dismissed by Ext.P9 order as follows:-
“Delay condoned.
We find no reason to entertain this special leave petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
At the same time, we record our dissatisfaction that in such cases also, the Union of India is travelling to this court wholly unnecessarily. They should consider their litigation policy.
However, one month time is given to comply with the order, failing which the High Court will be free to proceed with the pending contempt petition.”
(underline supplied)
8. The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Ram Devi’s case cited supra was also considering the applicability of Ext P1 Office Memorandum and held that the same would apply to armed forces personnel as well. In the said case, the court was considering the death of a head constable working in BSF due to cardio-respiratory arrest and died after he returned to the barracks after completing his duty. The Court held that the office memorandum, which is a beneficial face of executive policy, must receive a liberal interpretation, and held in paragraphs 20 and 21 as follows:-
“20. Blending the statutory definition of active duty in the potion of the two Office Memorandums, in harmony with the rule of interpretation of beneficial legislation, it can be said that the death of a force personnel due to heart attack suffered just after performing actual duty would be a case of an accidental death in the course of performance of duties. An accident would be an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unfortunately; an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause; a circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the nature of something; a misfortune.
21. The late husband of the petitioner died on September 16, 2010 within 15 minutes of completing ambush-cum-patrolling duty at the Border Outpost Jagmal at the Line of Control in Kutch. He may have had a liver problem which may have contributed to the heart attack suffered by him but no less could be the contribution of the stress occasioned while performing ambush-cum-patrolling duty. The late husband of the petitioner was on active duty and the concept of accident envisaged by the two Office Memorandums dated September 11, 1998 and September 02, 2008 has to be given a liberal interpretation keeping in view that the two Office Memorandums embody a beneficial executive policy. The liberal interpretation of accident would be as per para 20 above. Thus we hold that the petitioner would be entitled to the ex-gratia lump sum compensation payable under the Office Memorandum dated September 11, 1998 as modified by the Office Memorandum dated September 02, 2008. The compensation payable would be Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) which we direct to be paid to the petitioner within 8 weeks from today failing which the amount shall be paid with simple interest @ 8% per annum reckoned 8 weeks from the date of this decision.”
9. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Sangita Tomar’s case cited supra was considering the claim for ex gratia lump sum compensation of the petitioner therein, whose husband, working in the Border Road Organisation, died due to heart failure. The Delhi High Court, relying on Ext.P2 office memorandum, held in paragraph 21 as follows:-
“21. Accordingly, we find no hesitation to hold that death of petitioner's husband happened during the official course of his duties and, therefore, petitioner being the Nok of deceased Ram Kumar Singh is entitled to grant of ex gratia compensation. Consequently, order dated 19.10.2019 passed by the respondent relying upon DoP OM No. 45/55/97- P&PW(C) dated 11.09.1998; amended vide OM No. 38/37/2016-P&PW(A) (1) dated 04.08.2016, for rejection of grant of ex gratia pension to petitioner, is misplaced, as the case of deceased falls under the category of 'death due to accident in course of performance of duties'. Hence, petitioner is entitled to grant of ex gratia lump sum compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- in terms of Clause 12.1 of OM No. 38/37/2016-P&PW(A) (1) dated 04.08.2016.”
10. The Apex Court in Mst. Param Pal Singh’s case cited supra was considering the death of a truck driver who died due to heart failure while driving the vehicle and held that such an “untoward mishap” can be described as an accident solely attributable to the nature of employment. Paragraph 27 of the said judgment reads as follows:-
“27. Applying the various principles laid down in the above decisions to the facts of this case, we can validly conclude that there was CAUSAL CONNECTION to the death of the deceased with that of his employment as a truck driver. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a 45 years old driver meets with his unexpected death, may be due to heart failure while driving the vehicle from Delhi to a distant place called Nimiaghat near Jharkhand which is about 1152 kms. away from Delhi, would have definitely undergone grave strain and stress due to such long distance driving. The deceased being a professional heavy vehicle driver when undertakes the job of such driving as his regular avocation it can be safely held that such constant driving of heavy vehicle, being dependant solely upon his physical and mental resources & endurance, there was every reason to assume that the vocation of driving was a material contributory factor if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected death to occur which in all fairness should be held to be an untoward mishap in his life span. Such an 'untoward mishap' can therefore be reasonably described as an 'accident' as having been caused solely attributable to the nature of employment indulged in with his employer which was in the course of such employer's trade or business.”
11. A similar view was taken by the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Rajni Devi Sharma’s case cited supra.
In the light of the above, there is no doubt that the death of the petitioner’s husband due to heart attack while on duty at Jammu and Kashmir will come within the purview of death occurring due to accident in the course of performance of duty and therefore entitled to the benefit of Exts.P1 and P2 office memorandum. Since Ext.P2 office memorandum was in force at the time of his death, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit flowing out of Ext P2. Accordingly, Ext P6 order is set aside with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to grant ex- gratia lump sum compensation of Rs.25 lakhs to the petitioner as mandated in Ext.P2 office memorandum, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with interest @ 6% from the date of application i.e., 30.11.2018.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
|
| |
