Delhi High Court
Sunita Devi vs Union Of India & Ors. on 26 March, 2025
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~79
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12256/2022
SUNITA DEVI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sahil Chandra, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, CGSC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 26.03.2025
1. Naresh Kumar, the husband of the petitioner, suffered a heart
attack while participating in the Field Physical Efficiency Test1, which
was required to be undertaken as part of his duties when deployed
with the 151st Battalion of the BSF, then posted on the Indo-Pak
Border at Kutch, Gujarat.
2. The only controversy that has to be addressed is whether the
petitioner, as the widow of Naresh Kumar, would be entitled to extra-
ordinary pension and to ex gratia.
3. We have heard Mr. Sahil Chandra, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned CGSC for the respondent.
1 "FPET" hereinafter
4. At the very outset, we record our appreciation for the eminently
fair approach that Mr. Sharma has adopted in the present case.
5. The entitlement to extra-ordinary pension is governed by the
Central Civil Services (Extra-ordinary Pension) Rules, 19392. The
relevant provisions are contained in Rules 3(4), 3A, 10, Schedule II
and Schedule I-A of the CCS (EOP) Rules which, to the extent
relevant, are reproduced as under:
3(4) "disease" means -
a disease as is mentioned in Schedule I-A hereto annexed.
3-A Disablement/Death -
(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) Death shall be accepted as due to Government
service provided it is certified that it was due to or hastened
by -
(i) a wound, injury or disease which was
attributable to Government service, or
(ii) the aggravation by Government service of a
wound, injury or disease which existed
before or arose during Government service.
(2) There shall be a causal connection between -
(a) disablement and Government service; and
2 "the CCS (EOP) Rules" hereinafter
(b) death and Government service,
for attributability 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.
10. Death due to Government service- When death of
Government servant is conceded as due to Government service in
terms of Rule 3-A, his widow and children shall be awarded
pensionary benefits in accordance with Schedule II hereto annexed.
Schedule II For determining the compensation payable for death
or disability under different circumstances, the cases are
categorized in five distinct categories as under:
*****
Category B- Death or disability due to causes which are
accepted as attributable to or aggravated by Government
service. Diseases contracted because of continued exposure
to a hostile work environment, subjected to extreme
weather conditions or occupational hazards resulting in
death or disability would be examples.
6. Seen in conjunction, Rule 10 entitles the widow and children of
a government servant, whose death is conceded as due to government
service in terms of Rule 3A, to pensionary benefits in accordance with
Schedule II. Schedule II determines the compensation payable for
death or disability under various circumstances and sub-divides all
cases into five categories. Category B covers death or disability due
to causes which are accepted as attributable to or aggravated by
government service. This includes diseases contracted due to
occupational hazards resulting in death or disability. The Schedule
sets out the scales at which family pension would be payable in cases
covered by each of the aforesaid categories including Category B.
7. The expression "disease" is defined in Rule 3(4) as meaning a
disease as mentioned in Schedule I-A to the CCS (EOP) Rules.
8. Diseases affected by stress and strain are enumerated under
Head B in Schedule I-A, thus:
"(B) Diseases affected by stress and strain:
(i) Psychosis and Psychoneurosis;
(ii) Hyperpiesia;
(iii) Hypertension (Blood Pressure);
(iv) Pulmonary Tuberculosis;
(v) Pulmonary Tuberculosis with pleural effusion;
(vi) Tuberculosis - Non-pulmonary:
(vii) Mitral Stenosis;
(viii) Pericarditis and adherent pericardium;
(ix) Endo-carditis;
(x) Sub-acute bacterialendo-carditis, including infective
endocarditis;
(xi) Nyocarditis - acute or chronic;
(xii) Valvular disease;"
9. Though, strictly speaking, a heart attack is not included as one
of the diseases affected by stress and strain, we are of the opinion that
a reasonable and meaningful interpretation has to be accorded to the
Schedule. When the Schedule includes hypertension and valvular
disease in the list of diseases covered under Head B, as diseases
affected by stress and strain, it is irrational and illogical to hold that if
a person suffers a heart attack, it would not be covered under the
Schedule. This would also render the Schedule prima facie arbitrary,
and it is a well settled principle of interpretation that any interpretation
which renders a statutory provision to be arbitrary or unconstitutional
must be avoided.
10. We also note that, probably apparently aware of this lacuna, the
CCS (EOP) Rules have been renotified on 30 January 2023 and that
the 2023 CCS (EOP) Rules includes, after serial no. (xii) under the
Head of "diseases affected by stress and strain", "heart attack/cardio
related diseases".
11. Besides, the petitioner has also placed on record a
communication dated 15 October 2018 addressed by the
Commandant, 151st Battalion, BSF, to the Administrative Directorate,
HQ BSF, which deals with the petitioner's representation for grant of
extraordinary pension. Para 2 thereof reads thus:
"2. In this context, it is submitted that No. 89131521 Late
(Const/GD) Naresh Kumar was serving in ex "F" coy of this unit,
when the unit was deployed at Bhuj, Kutch-Bhuj (Gujarat). Troops
of 'F" Coy was undergoing the remaining two weeks coy collective
training which was terminated on 21st June 2008. The test of coy
collective training was scheduled to conduct on 20th & 21st June
2008. On 20th June 2008, the FPET event of coy troops was
conducted in which above deceased was participated along with
other coy troops at Bn HQ 151 Bn BSF, Bhuj. After completion of
3.2 mile run and successful over the 9' ditch, coy troops along with
deceased were lined up for doing next obstacles of 6' wall, No.
89131521 Const/GD Naresh Kumar was fell down and complained
of pain in the left side of chest at about 0644 hrs on same day i.e.
20th June 2008. He was declared brought dead at about 0702 hrs
by the treating doctor. Cause of death "Acute Cardiac Arrest".
Accordingly a Staff of Court of Inquiry was ordered vide SHQ
BSF. Bhuj order No. Estt/D-151/SHQ/2008/10633-37 dated 20th
June 2008 and the Court opined that:-
"Nobody is to be blamed for the death caused to No.
89131521 Ct Naresh Kumar. His death is attributed to
bonafied Govt duty".
Remarks of the Offg DIG SHQ BSF, Bhuj :-
"No. 89131521 Ct Naresh Kumar of 151 BN BSF expired
due to 'Acute Cardiac Arrest while on Govt. bonafide duty,
which is attributable to Govt. service for which no body is
to be blamed".
Remarks of the Inspector General, Frontier HQr BSF, Gujarat :-
"The death of No. 89131521 Ct Naresh Kumar is attributable
to bonafide Govt. Duty."
12. Given all these facts, we are of the opinion that the petitioner
cannot be denied extraordinary pension following the death of her
husband which took place owing to a heart attack suffered during the
course of undergoing FPET, which was part of his duties as a
Constable in the 151st Battalion of the BSF. We, therefore, hold that
the petitioner would be entitled to extraordinary pension as claimed in
accordance with Schedule II to the CCS (EOP) Rules.
13. Insofar as the entitlement of the petitioner to ex gratia is
concerned, the petitioner predicates her claim on an Office
Memorandum dated 11 September 1998 issued by the Department of
Pension and Pensioners' Welfare3, para 5 of which reads thus:
"5. In supersession of all earlier orders issued by Government
as well as by individual ministries and departments in so far as
these relate to the payment of an ex gratia lumpsum compensation
in certain specified circumstances, the President is pleased to
decide that families of Central Government Civilian emplovees
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 in
the course of performance of duties ₹ 5.00 lakhs
(b) Death occurring in the course of
performance of duties attributable to acts of
3 "DOPW" hereinafter
violence by terrorists, anti-social elements, etc. ₹ 5.00 lakhs
(c) Death occurring during (a) enemy
action in international war or border skirmishes:
and (b) action against militaries,
terrorists, extremists, etc. ₹ 7.50 lakhs"
14. The rates of ex gratia, available under the aforesaid OM were
revised by para 11 of the DOPW OM dated 2 September 2008, thus:
"11. In terms of Department of Pension & PW O.M.
No.45/55/97-P&PW(C) dated 11.9.1998, an ex gratia lump sum
compensation is available to the families of Central Government
Civilian employees, who die in the performance of their bona fide
official duties under various circumstances. The amount of this ex-
gratia lump sum compensation shall be revised as under :
(a) Death occurring due to accidents in
the course of performance of duties ₹ 10.00 lakh
(b) Death occurring in the course of
performance of duties attributable to
acts of violence by terrorists,
anti-social elements, etc. ₹ 10.00 lakh
(c) Death occurring (a) enemy action in
international war or border skirmishes:
and (b) action against militants,
terrorists, extremists, etc. ₹ 15.00 lakh
(d) Death occurring while on duty in the
specified high altitude, inaccessible border
posts, etc on account of Natural disasters,
extreme weather conditions. ₹ 15.00 lakh
The Department of Pension & PW O.M. No.45/55/97-
P&PW(C) dated 11.9.1998 shall stand modified to this extent."
15. Mr. Chandra submits that the death of the petitioner's husband
Naresh Kumar would fall within the Category A of para 11 of the
aforesaid DOPW OM dated 2 September 2008, as a "death occurring
due to accidents in the course of performance of duty". That the death
of Naresh Kumar occurred owing to the heart attack suffered by him
during the course of performance of his duties as a Constable in the
151st Battalion of the BSF cannot be disputed. We were only
concerned about whether the circumstances fall within the meaning of
the expression "accident".
16. Mr. Chandra has drawn our attention to two decisions rendered
by Division Benches of this Court in Ram Devi v Director General,
BSF4 and Smt Vijay Dwivedi v UOI5, the relevant paras of which read
thus:
From Ram Devi
"19. The two Office Memorandums are the beneficial face of
the executive policy and therefore must receive a liberal
interpretation.
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
4 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14661
5 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5455
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 ₹
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."
From Vijay Dwivedi
"12. The question which, therefore, accordingly needs to be
determined is as to whether the death of the petitioner's husband
would qualify as death due to an accident during the course of
performance of duties as envisaged under the aforesaid O.M. The
respondents have urged that death due to a heart attack cannot be
treated as death due to an accident. Having given our thoughtful
consideration to this plea of the respondents, we are unable to
agree. As per Black's Law Dictionary accidents include something
which happens suddenly, unexpectedly and not according to the
usual course of things. In this regard, we may also refer to the
definition of 'accidental death' from the Black's Law Dictionary.
The same reads as under:
"One caused by unexpected or unintended means."
13. In our view, the term 'accident' in the O.M. dated
04.08.2016, which is a beneficial policy, can, therefore, not be
given such a restrictive meaning so as to include only motor
accidents or accidents involving terrorists or anti-social elements,
etc. In the present case the death of the petitioner's husband was
undoubtedly sudden an unexpected. The same was, therefore,
evidently an accidental death. In these circumstances, we are of the
considered view that the death of the petitioner's husband would
certainly qualify as death due to an accident in the course of
performance of duties, as envisaged under the O.M. dated
04.08.2016.
14. We have also considered the respondent's plea that the
petitioner's husband, being in a low medical category, should have
himself opted out of the promotional course. We, however, find
absolutely no merit in this plea of the respondents as we are of the
opinion that it is undisputed that the medical specialists, while
placing the petitioner's husband in a low medical category, had not
endorsed any restrictions on his activities and therefore, there was
no reason for him not to opt for the course, which was a mandatory
course to enable him to earn further promotion in the Force. Even
otherwise, if we were to accept the respondents‟ plea that the
petitioner's husband, being in a low medical category, ought not to
have opted for the promotional course, the onus to explain as to
why despite being aware of his low medical category, the
respondents accepted his plea for being detailed in the aforesaid
course, would lie on the respondents.
15. In the light of the aforesaid, we have no hesitation in
holding that the respondent's rejection of the petitioner's claim for
ex-gratia compensation is unsustainable. The death of the
petitioner's husband would clearly qualify as death within the
ambit of the expression "Deaths occurring due to accidents in
course of performance of duties" for which a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs is
payable to her in terms of O.M. dated 04.08.2016."
17. We may note that, in fact, in Vijay Dwivedi, the husband of the
petitioner before this Court had only been asked to undergo a map
reading STD-I Course, which required him to carry out a point to
point exercise and that, in the course of carrying out the said exercise,
he complained of uneasiness at about 8.30 am and, when he was
carried to the hospital, was declared as brought dead.
18. The circumstances in the present case are, in fact, more
favourable to the petitioner's claim than the circumstances which
obtained in the case of Vijay Dwivedi.
19. Mr. Rahul Sharma has, with commendable fairness, also
submitted that a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of
this Court in Sangita Tomar v UOI6, which was also a case of heart
attack. The ratio decidendi of the said decision is to be found in the
following paragraphs:
"16. Pertinently, the twin questions which are required to be
determined by this Court in the present petition are, first; as to
whether consequent upon death of Ram Kumar Singh EXGO-
004185-K AE 9 CIVIL, who was working with Esteemed Border
Roads Organisations (EBRO), his wife i.e. petitioner, who is his
NoK, is entitled to grant of ex gratia compensation and second;
whether she is entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds.
17. Relevantly, the conditions for grant of ex gratia
compensation has been laid in by Department of Pension &
Pensioners' Welfare vide OM No. 45/55/97-P&PW (C) dated 11-9-
1998 and amended vide OM No. 38-37-2016-P7-PW(A)(i) dated 4-
8-2016, whereunder the main condition for payment of ex gratia
lump sum compensation is "that the death of employee concerned
should have occurred in actual performance of bona fide official
duties. In other words, a casual connection should be established
between the occurrence of death and government service".
18. Petitioner has placed reliance upon decision of this Court
in Ram Devi, wherein consequent upon death of Head Constable in
BSF because of "cardio respiratory arrest due to multi-organ
diseases and in particular liver cirrhosis"; his wife was denied ex
gratia compensation by the competent authority and this Court had
observed as under:
"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."
19. Reliance is also placed by petitioner upon a decision of
6 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2671
High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Pushpa Devi v. Union of
India7, wherein the learned Single Judge in a case where a driver
employed under Border Roads Organisation had died of heart
attack, granted ex gratia compensation to his widow while relying
upon decision of Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and
Haryana in Kamlesh Devi v. State of Punjab8, wherein it was held
that the word "accident" would also include person dying of "heart
attack" which is an unexpected event which happens without
design.
20. It is not disputed that Ram Kumar Singh EXGO-004185-K
AE 9 CIVIL was serving a hard posting at 476 RMPL in Shergaon,
Arunachal Pradesh when he died of heart attack on 21-1-2018. It is
also not disputed that out of his last three postings, two were in
high altitude areas and the last was a hard posting. There is no
denial from the respondents that in the family of the petitioner,
there is no history of death by heart attack. Moreover, at the time of
filing of the present petition, father of the petitioner, aged 83 years,
was said to be living a healthy life. The cause of death of
petitioner's husband has been opined as "acute myocardial
infarction". In medical terms, the reasons for most myocardial
infarctions are coronary artery disease due to prolonged
deprivation of oxygen supply and when one or more areas of heart
muscles do not get enough oxygen, it results into heart attack. It is
not wrong to presume here that due to various postings in high
altitude areas, Ram Kumar Singh might have been deprived of
oxygen necessary for a healthy heart and sustained medical
problems, which could not be known at initial stage. It is admitted
by respondent that on 20-1-2018, deceased Ram Kumar Singh had
gone to visit the road sector OKSRT road and Shergaon-Morshing-
Phudung Road and returned to his location at 476 RMPL in
Shergaon at 1910 hours and on return he complained of chest pain
and at about 1945 hours, he was rushed to the Military Hospital
Tenga Valley, which is indisputably located at a distance of 65 km
and so, the necessary medical assistance which supposedly was
required to be provided to him instantly, however, could only be
given after approximately three hours thereof.
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
7 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 5537
8 2001 SCC OnLine P&H 1507
relying upon DoP OM No. 45/55/97-P&PW(C) dated 11-9-1998;
amended vide OM No. 38-37-2016-P&PW(A)(i) dated 4-8-2016,
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)(i) dated 4-8-2016."
20. Following the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, we have
no doubt in our mind that the petitioner would also be entitled to ex
gratia compensation as per the rates contained in the DOPT OM dated
2 September 2008, consequent on the death of her husband, Naresh
Kumar, Constable.
21. We, therefore, allow the present writ petition.
22. The respondents are directed to disburse the amounts of extra-
ordinary pension and ex gratia compensation as would be payable to
the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from today.
23. In passing, we may note that we have requested Mr. Rahul
Sharma to confer with his department as to whether Rule 10 of the
CCS (EOP) Rules may require a re-drafting to make it more gender
neutral, as the Rule, as it stands, would not enure to the benefit of the
widower of the children of a women government servant whose death
may be conceded due to government service in terms of Rule 3A of
CCS (EOP) Rules.
24. We note that the Rules are archaic, having been framed nearly a
century ago in 1939.
25. Mr Rahul Sharma has ensured that he would communicate our
concern to the respondent.
26. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no
orders as to costs.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
MARCH 26, 2025
ar
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
