Mahender Pal Singh vs Director General, C.R.P.F.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1082 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Dev Singh, J.

1. By this writ petition the petitioner claims the following reliefs:-

"(a) Quash or set aside the impugned order dated 30-3-2000; and

(b) Direct the respondent to grant to the petitioner the disability pension and his other claims as permitted by this Hon'ble Court in its order dated 24-8-1999 in L.P.A. No. 445 of 1998 after recalling the exparte order dated 4-10-1999 in C.M. No. 3049 of 1999 in L.P.A. No. 445 of 1998 which came to the knowledge of the petitioner after 23-2-2000.

(c) Pass such other or further order/orders or direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are as follows:-

3. The petitioner was enrolled as NK/PO on February 1, 1967 in the Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.). After about three and a half years, the petitioner tendered his resignation and he was discharged from service on October 15, 1971. The petitioner, however, was given fresh appointment in the CRPF on June 1, 1976. He continued in service till November 6, 1984 when he was declared permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind in the CRPF. The cause of permanent incapacity was traced to head injury for which the petitioner was taking treatment since 1984 in Safdarjung Hospital. In the year 1994, the petitioner filed a writ petition, being CWP No. 3983/94, in this Court mainly claiming the relief under Rule 38 of the CCS (Pension) Rule 1972 for grant of invalid pension. A learned Single Judge of this Court accepted the writ petition and directed the respondents to fix the pension payable to the petitioner on the basis of his having served the CRPF for eight years and seven months. The calculations were directed to be made as per Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension; Director General, CRPF, and the Commandant, SGC, CRPF, filed a letters patent appeal, being LPA No. 445/98, against the order of the learned Single Judge. On August 24, 1999, the Division Bench directed as follows:-

"That during the course of arguments a suggestion was given to the parties that in view of invalidity of the respondent which was not caused due to any of his irregular or intemperate habits, he should be paid an adhoc exgratia payment as was ordered by the Supreme Court in similar circumstances in the case of J. John v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 7155/96 decided on 11th December, 1997. After some deliberation it was agreed that a sum of Rs. One Lac be paid to the respondent and the respondent has agreed to accept the same in full and final settlement of his claim towards invalid pension.

It is accordingly ordered that adhoc exgratia payment of Rs. One Lac be paid to the respondent by the appellant after, however, adjusting an amount of Rs. 25,000/- already paid to the respondent. The balance amount of Rs. 75,000/- be paid to the respondent by appellant/Union of India within one month from today. This order is without prejudice tot he rights of the respondent with regard to his other claims including the claim of disability pension."

4. It appears that the appellants therein filed an application for clarification of the order dated August 24, 1999 whereupon the Division Bench passed the following order:-

"Heard.

It is clarified that in the order dated 24th August, 1999 the counsel for the Union of India had not conceded but the respondent had agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in full and final settlement of his claim towards invalid pension. It is further clarified that this order may not be utilised as a precedent."

5. Since the Division Bench vide its order dated August, 1999 had passed the order without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to claim disability pension, on February 16, 2000 the petitioner made a representation to the Commandant, 1 Signal BN, CRPF, for grant of disability pension. On March 30, 2000, the Commandant, 1 Signal BN, CRPF, rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had agreed to the full and final settlement of the claim by accepting ex-gratia payment of Rupees One Lac. The letter communicating the decision reads as follows:-

"Relief to your application dated 16.2.2000.

2. In this connection, it is to inform you that you had agreed in full and final settlement towards invalid pension by accepting ex-gratia payment of Rupees One Lac which has already been paid to you as per the orders of the Hon'ble Court and you are not entitled for any kind of pension. Your claim to disability pension also doe snot sand because your invalidation from the service is not attributable to Govt. duty."

6. Aggrieved by the letter of the Commandant, 1 Signal BN, CRPF, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for the reliefs which have already been set out hereinabove.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. At the outset we wish to point out that the petitioner was granted ex-gratia payment of Rs. One lac which he had accepted. By accepting the ex-gratia payment of Rs. One lac the petitioner had not forfeited his claim for disability pension. The Division Bench by its order dated August 24, 1999 specifically made the order without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner with regard to his claim for disability pension. Therefore, the observation of the Commandant, 1 Signal BN, CRPF, contained in his letter dated March 30, 2000 that the petitioner having accepted the ex-gratia payment of Rs. One lac towards "invalid pension" he is not entitled to any kind of pension, is not correct. The claim of the petitioner for disability pension was also negatived on the ground that the injury sustained by the petitioner was not attributable to government duty. Therefore, the question which needs consideration and determination is whether the petitioner is entitled to disability pension.

8. In order to determine the issue we may turn to the certificate of the Chief Medical Officer, Base Hospital I, CRPF, dated November 6, 1984. This certificate was recorded after examining the petitioner. In Civil Writ Petition No. 3983/94 and L.P>A. No. 445/98, both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench referred to the examination of the petitioner by a Board of Medical Officers of Base Hospital-I, CRPF. The Medical Board was constituted on November 6, 1984 by the Chief Medical Officer Base Hospital-I, CRPF. The proceedings of the Medical Board were forwarded to the Chief Medical Officer, Base Hospital-I, CRPF. Based on the view of the Medical Board, the Chief Medical Officer, CRPF, issued certificate dated 6, 1984. The certificate reads as follows:-

"Certified that I/we have carefully examined No. 761010117 NK RO Mohinder Pal Singh S/o Late Sh. Babu Ram in the Base Hospital No. 1, CRPF, New Delhi. His own age by his own statement is 35 years and by appearance about 35 years. I (we) consider No. 761010117 NK RO Mohinder Pal Singh S/o Late Shri Babu Ram to be completely and permanently incapacitated for further service of any kind in the Department to which he belongs in consequent of Head Injury (Effect of) here state disease or cause). His incapacity does not appear to me/us to have been caused by irregular or intemperate habits."

9. Thus, it appears from the certificate that the petitioner's incapacity for further service was due to head injury. The certificate also recorded that the incapacity of the petitioner does not appear to have been caused by irregular or intemperate habits.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was taking treatment at Safdarjung Hospital but the treatment card does not disclose that the petitioner has sustained head injury. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent militates against the medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Base Hospital-I, CRPF, dated November 6,1984. Besides, in the counter-affidavit itself it is admitted that the petitioner had sustained head injury and he was taking treatment at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, since 1984 for headache and giddiness. What was disputed in the counter-affidavit was that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner was injured while performing any kind of government duty, and, therefore, it was averred that the injury was not attributable to government duty. It is, therefore, too late in the day to argue that the petitioner did not receive head injury. It is also not the case of the respondent that the petitioner sustained head injury before joining the CRPF. Therefore, the injury must have been received by the petitioner during his service with the CRPF.

11. However, this not the end of the matter. Mere fact that the injury was received during the course of he service does not entitle an employee to claim disability pension. What has to be shown is that the injury was attributable to government service. Rule 3-A of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules provides as under:-

"(1)(a) Disablement shall be accepted as due to Government service provided that it is certified that it is due to wound, injury or disease which-

(i) is attributable to Government service, or

(ii) existed before or arose during Government service and has been and remains aggravated thereby.

(b).....

(2) There shall be a causal connection between-

(a) disablement and Government service, and

(b) death and Government service,

for attributable or aggravation to be conceded. Guidelines in this regard are given in the Appendix which shall be treated as part and parcel of these Rules.

Clarification.- It will be seen from the new (revised) Forms 'C' 'D' and 'E' that these forms of medical certificates have been so designed that they would indicate whether the entitlement criteria laid down in new Rule 3-A have been satisfied or not and therefore, normally, no other separate certificates in that behalf may be necessary. It is essential for the Administrative Officer as well as the Audit Office (APO) concerned to satisfy themselves that the death/disability is, in fact, attributable to or aggravated by the Government service which alone makes an EOP Award admissible and for the purpose, it is essential of both these authorities to satisfy themselves in that behalf and certify the nexus and causal connection between disablement and Government service or between death and Government service (as the case may be), in any particular case, as laid down in the new Rule 3-A on the basis of the medical and other documents regarding the case. If a Government servant had died in such circumstances and that a medical report could not be secured, even then , the nexus and the causal connection between death and Government service has to be established before conceding acceptance of death due to Government service."

xx xx xx"

12. A reading of the aforesaid rule along with the above mentioned clarification leaves no manner of doubt that disablement is accepted as due to government service if it is certified by the concerned Administrative Officer and the Audit Office that it is due to wound or injury or disease which is attributable to government service, or was in existence or arose during government service and has been remains aggravated thereby. The aforesaid authorities need to be satisfied that there is nexus and causal connection between disablement and Government service, and of death and Government service in a case of death for the purpose of attributability and aggravation. In other words, the disability acquired by an employee as a result of wound, injury or disease must originate or get aggravated, as the case my be, due to Government service. Government service should be the cause of the disease or at least its aggravation.

13. In Jarnail Singh v. Union of India and Ors., 1997 (3) Recent Services judgments 619, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has laid down the before an employee is held entitled to disability pension it has to be shown that there is connection between disability acquired by an employee and the government service. In this regard, the High Court held as follows:-

"On proper analysis of the above discussion of the position that emerges is that an accident or injury suffered by a member of the armed forces must have some causal connection to the aggravation or attributability to military service and at least should arise from such activity of the member of the force as he is expected to maintain or do in his day-to-day life as a member of the force..."

14. In the instant case, thee is nothing on record to show that the disability acquired by the petitioner had any nexus or causal connection with the government service.

15. The petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Lance Dafadar Joginder Singh v. Union of India and Ors., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 232, to urge that any disability acquired during service should be considered as attributable to service in which the employee was engaged. The decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Joginder Singh (supra) does not help the petitioner. In that case the appellant was serving int he regular Army. While proceeding on causal leave to his home in District Faridkot (Punjab), he met with an accident as result of which his right leg was amputated. due to the disability acquired by him he was discharged from Army. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant was on casual leave and the accident took place while the appellant was proceeding to his home town in District Faridkot, the Supreme Court held that the appellant though on casual leave is to be treated as on duty and the injury was sustained while performing duty. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court directed grant of disability pension to the appellant Lance Dafadar Joginder Singh. The petitioner also relied upon the decision of Madan Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India and Ors., , wherein the Supreme Court in some what similar fact situation directed grant of disability pension to an army personnel who sustained injury on account of an accident while alighting from train at Didwara Railway Station consequent to while his hand was amputated. At the time of the accident was on authorised casual leave. Again keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that any army personnel meeting with an accident while he was home bound on authorised casual leave must be treated as on duty in accordance with Rule 48 of the defense Services Regulation. Both the decisions do not advance the case of the petitioner. They turn on their own fact situation.

16. One more point needs to be highlighted. The CCS (EOP) Rules also lay down limitation for claiming disability pension. In this regard Rule 6 of the CCS (EOP) Rules reads as follows:-

"6. No award shall be made in respect of-

(i) an injury sustained more than five years before the date of application, or

(ii)...."

17. According to the aforesaid Rule, in case a government servant wishes to claim disability pension he must make an application within five years from the date of sustaining injury. The petitioner was invalidated from service in the year 1984. Assuming that the petitioner sustained injury immediately before his discharge, the petitioner ought to have made a claim for disability pension within five years, i.e. by 1989. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for claiming disability pension after about seventeen years. The petition, therefore, is highly belated and cannot be entertained after such a long time.

18. The petitioner also seeks implementation of the order passed in the earlier writ petition. The instant petition is not an appropriate remedy in so far as the implementation of the order in Civil Writ Petition No. 3983/94 is concerned.

19. In the circumstances, therefore, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.