Saroj Devi vs Union Of India & Anr
2013 Latest Caselaw 2748 Del

$~
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                          W.P.(C) No.2557/2013
%                                                   Date of decision: 3rd July, 2013
        SAROJ DEVI                                            ..... Petitioner
                           Through          Mr.Akhilesh Arora, Adv.

                           versus

        UNION OF INDIA & ANR                                 ..... Respondents

                      Through               Mr.Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC with
                                            Mr.Gurjinder Kaur, Adv. & Mr.R.
                                            Jayaram, AC/CISF

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
        HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

GITA MITTAL, J (ORAL)

1. Learned counsel for the respondents has handed over a copy of the

communication dated 28th June, 2013 whereby the respondents have

communicated the recalculation and re-fixation of the pension which is found

admissible to Smt. Saroj Devi, widow of Late Shri Chamru Oraon. Learned

Standing Counsel for the Central Government has also handed over a copy of

communication dated 21st June, 2013 received by him from the Directorate General

of the Central Industrial Security Force in order to explain the circumstances in

which the delay occurred in making payment of the extraordinary pension to the

petitioner.

2. So far as the writ petition is concerned, the respondents have disclosed the

following facts:-

(i) CISF No.774400121 Exh-HC/GD Chamru Oraon was appointed in

CISF on 05.04.1977.

(ii) He was posted to CISF Unit BCCL Dhanbad on 15.06.1999 and

deployed at area No.VII of BCCL Dhanbad.

(iii) On 15th July, 2000 he was deployed for duty from 2100 hrs at

Barari Coke plant of Bhagabandh Area with rifle and ammunition.

Apprehending that HC/GD Chamru Oraon has fallen down in the water

tank, some civilians went inside the tank with the help of a ladder and

recovered the unconscious body of HC/GD Chamru Oraon from the

water tank. He was taken to nearby Kustor Hospital for treatment, where

the doctor declared him brought dead at about 2135 hrs on 15 th July,

2000.

(iv) On the next date i.e. on 16th July, 2000 postmortem was conducted

at Pataliputra Medical College Hospital (PMCH) Dhanbad. In the post-

mortem report it was opined, the cause of death to be due to Asphyxia as

a result of drowning.

(v) As per the laid down procedure, a Board of Officers was detailed

to conduct the Court of Inquiry so as to ascertain the facts and

circumstances of the incident vide Commandant, CISF Unit BCCL

Dhanbad order No.(1709) dated 27th July, 2000.

(vi) The Board conducted the inquiry and submitted its report on 5 th

August, 2000. In its report the Board opined that the cause of death to be

due to falling down of the individual in the water tank and subsequently

drowning in the water.

3. The petitioner has stated that the deceased was an able bodied officer who

had served the respondents for a period of more than 23 years and that the

deceased had actually drowned when he was on duty when he was posted at

BhagaBandh, Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

4. There is no dispute that Head Constable/GD Chamru Oraon died on 16 th

July, 2000 while on duty. No fault could be attributed to him.

5. So far as the pension is concerned, the respondents sanctioned ordinary

family pension as per Rule 54 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1964 vide PPO

No.237040001094 dated 9th November, 2000 and made the following payments:-

(a) DCRG-Rs.1,31,389/- vide Cheque No.0900-488604 dated 21.11.2000.

(b) CGEGIS-Rs.30,000/- and Rs.12,924/- vide Cheque No.0900-486537

dated 25.10.2000

(c) EL/HPL-Rs.28,887/- vide Cheque No.0903-719072 dated 24.08.2001.

(d) RMS-Rs.42,303/- vide B.D. No.0971-327412 dated 20.10.2000

(e) GPF Rs.24,221/- vide B.D. No.0901-525408 dated 20.10.2001

6. No other payments were made to the family of the deceased Head Constable

till 9th March, 2012 when the respondents released an ex gratia amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- to his widow (the present petitioner) after passage of 11 years and 7

months from the death of the petitioner's husband.

7. The petitioner represented against the failure of the respondents to grant her

extraordinary pension in accordance with the Central Civil Service (Extraordinary

Pension) Rules but her representation evoked no response from the respondents, let

alone a favourable consideration.

8. It is noteworthy that the petitioner, who appears to be illiterate, is a resident

of Village Siyang, Post Charda, District Gumla, Jharkhand and would have been

hard pressed in seeking legal redressal. On failure of the respondents to do justice

to her, she has been compelled to file the writ petition in this court making a prayer

for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to calculate the pension

payable to her towards extraordinary pension in accordance with the afore-noticed

rules and to make payment with interest from the date of death of the husband of

the petitioner till its realization.

9. Learned standing counsel for the respondents has painstakingly urged that

the respondents were acting bona fide and that their concern with the petitioner is

manifested from the fact that they have granted compassionate appointment to Shri

Binod Oraon, son of the deceased. We are informed by the respondents that such

appointment has been effected by an order passed on 22 nd January, 2007, which is

also almost seven years after the expiry of Late Shri Chamru Oraon. This

appointment on compassionate basis has been effected as a welfare measure under

a scheme of compassionate appointment framed by the petitioners. No special

favour has been done to the petitioner and such appointment does not in any

manner denigrate from the right or entitlement of the petitioner to grant of her

lawful dues which included the extraordinary family pension. The compassionate

appointment of the deceased soldier's son itself manifests that the respondents

accepted the urgency of the needs of the family of the deceased soldier.

10. It is trite and needs no elaboration that financial payments especially in the

nature of pension or extraordinary pension are required by the dependants of a

deceased official for meeting their monthly requirements. Delay in effecting such

payments would irreparably cause harm to such dependants as the petitioner.

11. So far as the contention that the petitioner has not made disclosure of the

compassionate appointment of her son is concerned, we may note that the

petitioner is an illiterate and poor lady residing in a remote village in district

Gumla, Jharkhand. In any case, the factum of the engagement of the son of the

deceased does not in any manner disentitle the widow to the grant of the

extraordinary family pension. This is evident from the order dated 28 th June, 2013

passed by the respondents finding the petitioner's claim for extraordinary pension

justified.

12. A perusal of this order dated 28th June, 2013 would show that the

respondents have held that the petitioner is entitled to arrears of extraordinary

pension scheme w.e.f. 16th July, 2000 till date. It is evident that the same has been

wrongly denied to her for no fault of hers.

13. The writ petition was listed before us for the first time on 22 nd April, 2013

when we had noted that the matter is pending for a period of almost thirteen years

for grant of pension and that no orders had been passed till that date. In this

background, peremptory order was passed against the respondents to place before

us on affidavit the manner in which the petitioner's case for the amount of pension

has been processed.

14. The respondents were directed to show cause as to why compensation

should not be paid to the petitioner. In further directions, we had also directed as

follows:-

"xxx We shall be given a date-wise progress of the matter in the instant case. In case an order, granting or rejecting the petitioner's prayer has not been passed, the PCDA shall personally remain present on the next date of hearing.

4. In case orders stand passed and only implementation is awaited, the respondent shall ensure that the needful is

undertaken before the counter affidavit is filed.

5. Liberty is given to the petitioner to file rejoinder to the counter affidavit before the next date of hearing.

6. Appropriate orders as to showing cause as to why compensation should not be paid to the petitioner shall be considered on the receipt of the counter affidavit."

15. On 17th May, 2013, we had noted that the respondents failed to render any

explanation as to why it had taken over twelve years to the respondents to grant of

ex gratia payment of Rs.12,00,000/- in spite of death of her husband on 16th July,

2000 by drowning while on duty which amount was released only on 7 th March,

2012. We had also noted that the respondents had failed to consider the

petitioner's entitlement to extraordinary pension till the hearing on 17 th May, 2013

and had only asserted a bald plea of denial in the counter affidavit to the petitioner

for the same. It is obviously the passing of order dated 17 th May, 2013 which has

motivated the respondents to look into the matter in accordance with law and

passing the order dated 28th June, 2013.

16. The petitioner became entitled to the amounts which have been paid by the

respondents upon the demise of Late Shri Chamru Oraon on 15th July, 2000. The

respondents are not in a position to inform us even today as to whether the amounts

in terms of their own order dated 28th June, 2013 have actually been released to the

petitioner till date or not. In the given facts, we are of the view that the petitioner

deserves to be paid interest on the amounts which have been belatedly assessed as

payable and paid to the petitioner.

17. In view of the above, we direct as follows:-

(i) The petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% on the amount of

Rs.9,00,000/- paid as extraordinary pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 15 th July, 2000

(date of expiry of Late Chamru Oraon) till 7th March, 2012 when the amount was

paid.

(ii) The petitioner shall be entitled to interest on the amounts found due and

payable to the petitioner in terms of the communication dated 28 th June, 2013 with

effect from the date they became due and payable till date the payment is actually

effected at the rate of 12% per annum.

(iii) The respondents shall effect the computation in terms of our above order

within a period of four weeks and communicate the same to the petitioner

immediately thereupon.

Copy thereof shall be filed in this court positively within a period of six

weeks from today.

In case the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the same, she shall be

at liberty to take appropriate legal remedy in respect thereof.

(iv) The respondents shall effect payment of arrears to the petitioner within a

period of four weeks thereafter.

(v) The petitioner shall be entitled to costs which are quantified at Rs.25,000/-

which shall be paid on or before the seventh day of each English calendar month.

(vi) This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.

Dasti to parties.

(GITA MITTAL) JUDGE

(DEEPA SHARMA) JUDGE JULY 03, 2013 aa