Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005340
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 05.12.2022
+ W.P.(C) 14166/2022
PRADIP GOSWAMI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.P. Sureshan, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC
with Ms.Kamal Digpaul, Adv.
SI Prahlad Devenda, CISF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to treat the period of 162 days availed by him due to an accident, as "Work Related Illness and Injury Leave" in terms of OM dated 30.08.2019 passed by the Department of Personnel and Training.
2. Case of the petitioner is that he joined CISF in the year 1994 and joined CISF Unit DMRC Delhi. He was posted on 1st shift duty at Keshavpuram Metro Station on 11.12.2019 under CISF Unit DMRC and a total of 11 days earned leave from 12.12.2019 to 23.12.2019 was sanctioned by the competent authority of the concerned unit. On 12.12.2019, petitioner had left for Anand Vihar Railway Station for going to his native place by an
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 14166/2022 Page 1 of 7 Digitally Signed By:ALKA BOBAL Signing Date:06.12.2022 12:48 Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005340
auto and a truck number UP 83 BT 8876 hit the said auto near Geeta Colony flyover Rajghat at around 0610 hours. In the said accident, petitioner and auto driver were injured and taken to LNJP Hospital Delhi. After first aid, petitioner was admitted to the trauma center of AIIMS Hospital where the doctors, after examining informed that there was a lot of fracture in his body (on the left side), two metal rods in the left thigh, metal chain in the waist and two long screws near the stomach were fixed and was discharged on 26.12.2019 by giving medical rest for a total period of 162 days from 12.12.2019 to 21.05.2020 and the petitioner was given fitness for duty from 22.05.2020. He was continuously performing his duty with CISF Unit DMRC Delhi.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the competent authority vide an inquiry report dated 10.06.2021 by the Court of Inquiry concluded as under:
"The said force member has taken medical rest for a total of 162 days from 12.12.2019 till 21.05.2020 as per the advice of the doctor, which the force member has requested for regularization in WRIIL. Which is not logical. There is no negligence or mistake on the part of constable / GD Pradeep Goswami in the above incident. This type of accident can happen to anyone. The road accident with the said member is just an unfortunate coincidence. Hence, no disciplinary case is made out against force no 945020132 Ct/GD Pradeep Goswami. And as per the advice of the doctor, it is recommended to regularize the medical rest period consumed by the force member for a total of 162 days from the date 12.12.2019 till 21.05.2020"
4. Learned counsel also submits that in the second report of the court of Inquiry dated 31.08.2021 it was again concluded that the request for treating 162 days of leave as "Work Related Illness and Injury Leave" (WRIIL) but recommended to regularize the said leave according to CISF rules.
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 14166/2022 Page 2 of 7 Digitally Signed By:ALKA BOBAL Signing Date:06.12.2022 12:48 Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005340
5. Petitioner submitted various representations requesting to treat the period of 162 days period as "Work Related Illness and Injury Leave (WRIIL), however, vide impugned communication dated 06.07.2022, it has been intimated that the request of the petitioner has been "considered and not acceded to" by the competent authority vide CISF NCRS letter No. IC- 17099/CISF/NCRS/CIW/CF89 (DMRC)/2022 - 6639 dated 01.07.2022. Hence, the present petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the earlier also similar and same issue came up before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1488/2017, titled as „Bhagu Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors.‟ which was decided on 31.01.2019 and the case of petitioner is squarely covered by the said by observing as under:
"31. In General Manager B.E.S.T. Undertaking, Bombay v. Agnes (supra), the Court held that the driver of the Petitioner‟s undertaking met with an accident while going home from duty would be covered by this expression entitling the driver‟s family to receive the compensation. Further, in case of Madan Singh (supra), the Supreme Court while determining the question held that a person on casual leave while travelling even on his own expense suffers from an injury, such would be attributable to the military service entitling him to receive the disability pension. The Court in Madan Singh (supra),thus enlarged the scope and meaning of the word ―public expense‖ with respect to Clause 10(2), Regulation 173 and held as under:-
"13. If the expression "at public expense" is to be construed literally then under the Rules referred to above, an army personal incurring a disability during his travel at his own expenses will not be entitled to the benefit of Rule 6(c) (supra). The object of the rule, as we see, is to provide relief to a victim of accident during the travel. If that be so, the nature of expenditure incurred for the purpose of such travel is wholly alien to the object of the rule."
32. It thus emerges that the courts have repeatedly held that the legislative intent is towards the liberal construction of the provisions.
The Courts have held that the intent is to give the wider scope while
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 14166/2022 Page 3 of 7 Digitally Signed By:ALKA BOBAL Signing Date:06.12.2022 12:48 Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005340
considering the question of the attributability of the injury to the service.
33. Now, in this background, we take note of the specific provisions appearing in CISF Act which can throw light on the concept of an Officer being ―on duty. Section 15 of CISF reads as under:- ― "15 Officers and members of the Force to be considered always on duty and liable to be employed anywhere in India.
--
(1) Every [***] member of the Force shall, for the purpose of this act, be considered to be always on duty, and shall, at any time, be liable to be employed at any place within [or outside] India.
(2) Save as provided in section 14, no [***] member of the force shall engage himself in any employment or office other than his duties under this Act.
34. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that the member of the Force is considered to be always on duty.
35. Special Disability Leave claim can arise on account of injury or a disease/illness. The causal connection of the disability in the case of disease/illness becomes an intricate and complex question as it requires determination whether the employment contributed to the disease/injury suffered by an employee. However, in the present case the causal connection has to be examined in relation to the injury accidentally incurred.
36. This question also has two limbs. First, accidental injury can be inflicted when an employee is on ―actual duty‖ or ―active duty‖. Second, the accidental injury is suffered when an employee was not on actual duty or was on casual leave. Before we discuss the law on this aspect, we would like to remind ourselves what we have already observed that in view of the wide scope of the Special Disability Leave Rules, the question of accidental injury and being on ―active duty‖ or ―deemed duty‖ is not directly relatable. The causal connection has to be ascertained in the context of ―the consequence of official position‖ and/or ―official duties‖. The entitlement of disability leave, may still require an enquiry to ascertain whether the injury accidentally incurred, is in consequence of the due performance of official position or is in discharge of his official position. This brings us to the question whether proceeding on leave or enjoyment of authorized leave is part of the employment. It must be borne in mind that the term accidental injury in its ordinary sense conveys that such injury has occurred unintended and unexpectedly. It must be understood as something that was unforeseeable and incomprehensible. As long as there is an
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 14166/2022 Page 4 of 7 Digitally Signed By:ALKA BOBAL Signing Date:06.12.2022 12:48 Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005340
element of discharging official duties at the time of occurrence of the injury, the eligibility requirement would stand fulfilled. The injury was accidentally incurred by the Petitioner on a day when he was proceeding to his home town on sanctioned leave. Petitioner would not have been entitled to leave his duty without the permission and authorization by CISF. Petitioner had a valid leave certificate and thus he was undertaking the journey under authorization. Petitioner‟s activity at the time of the injury cannot be said to be entirely alien to his official duty. Petitioner was proceeding to his home town on authorized leave and therefore he was doing an act that was essential for him to avail his leave at his home town duly authorized by CISF. The accidental injury has occurred as a consequence of the Petitioner's official duties. Thus there is apparent and requisite nexus which provides a causal connection between the injuries suffered by the Petitioner and his official duties. The respondents have relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Regional Director, E.S.I Corporation & Anr v. Francis De Costa &Anr (supra) to contend that the a road accident cannot be said to have arisen out of employment. First and foremost, it is to be noticed that the aforesaid judgment is in the context of a claim by a workman under Employees‟ State Insurance Act, 1948, wherein ―employment injury‖ has been defined under section 2(8) as under:
"(8) ― employment injury ‖ means a personal injury to an employee caused by accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment, being an insurable employment, whether the accident occurs or the occupational disease is contracted within or outside the territorial limits of India "
37. The ratio of the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case where the causal connection has to be determined in light of distinct rules as discussed above. We have also noticed the recent judgments of the Supreme Court wherein it has consistently held that injury suffered by an officer during casual leave would not render him ineligible to disability benefits. The courts have held that the attribution to injury in military service has to be understood in wide spectrum. It does not however mean that the principle of prudence and reasonableness would be ignored while determining such questions. Each case would have to be examined in accordance with its facts. In this regard reference may be made to judgments passed by this Court in the case of Ex. AC Somveer Rana v. Union of India WP (C) No. 2418/2004, Ex. Hav (AEC) Bhup Singh v. Union of India WP (C) No. 2325/2005, Hayat Mohammed v. Union of India (2007) 138 DLT 537 and Supreme Court in Union of India v. Surendra Pandey, (2015) 13 SCC 625. We are also conscious that
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 14166/2022 Page 5 of 7 Digitally Signed By:ALKA BOBAL Signing Date:06.12.2022 12:48 Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005340
most of the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court are concerning the Officers of the Indian Army, but that would not render the ratio inapplicable to the present case on the question of causal connection viz the attribution of the injuries to the official duties/official position.
38. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The orders dated 3rd April 2014 and 22nd December 2014 are set aside. Respondents are directed to regularize the leave of the Petitioner as Special Disability Leave as is permissible under the CCS (Leave) Rules. The consequential orders be passed within a period of four weeks. No order as to costs."
7. Pursuant to order dated 06.10.2022, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents, on instructions, submits that facts of the aforementioned case and of the present case are same and similar and not disputed that the injuries received by the petitioner is related to the road accident. Since this issue has already been decided in the aforementioned case, therefore, we hereby dispose of the present petition by giving direction to the respondents to treat the leave period of 162 days from 12.12.2019 to 21.05.2020 availed by the petitioner in view of an accident as "Work Related Illness and Injury Leave" (WRIIL) and in terms of the DoP&T O.M. dated 30.08.2019.
8. Consequently, the inquiry reports dated 10.06.2021, 31.08.2021 and communication dated 06.07.2022 issued by the respondents are hereby set aside.
9. Respondents are further directed to pass a fresh order within six weeks from today and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter.
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 14166/2022 Page 6 of 7 Digitally Signed By:ALKA BOBAL Signing Date:06.12.2022 12:48 Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005340
10. In view of abovesaid directions, petition as well as pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA) JUDGE DECEMBER 05, 2022/ab
Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 14166/2022 Page 7 of 7 Digitally Signed By:ALKA BOBAL Signing Date:06.12.2022 12:48
