Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jyoti Devi vs Union Of India And Others on 5 July, 2022
CWP-4408-2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(222) CWP-4408-2017
Date of Decision : July 05, 2022
Jyoti Devi .. Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Lokesh Narang, Sr. Panel Counsel, for the respondents.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the
extraordinary pension in respect of the service rendered by her late husband
Jai Parkash, who unfortunately died while in service on 03.07.2010.
As per the facts mentioned in the petition, husband of the
petitioner namely Jai Parkash son of Tara Chand joined the Sashastra Seema
Bal (hereinafter referred as 'SSB') on 14.03.2006. At the time when Jai
Parkash joined the service, he was medically examined and he was found fit
to join the service. While in service, Jai Parkash was posted in Assam and
due to working conditions, he developed a lung disease and ultimately died
on 03.07.2010. After the death, the petitioner has been given ordinary
pension in respect of the service rendered by her late husband Jai Parkash
and the claim of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner is
entitled for extraordinary pension as the cause of death of late husband of
1 of 5
the petitioner is attributable to the service conditions.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that as per the
guidelines which have been issued by the Department, which are in force
w.e.f. 01.01.1996, death or disability, which is attributable or is aggravated
by the service, an employee is entitled for disability/extraordinary family
pension as the case may be. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
in the present case, at the time when the husband of the petitioner joined the
service, he was medically examined and was not diagnosed with any liver
problem, which disease could have been easily detected at the time of
medical examination, hence, the cause of death is attributable to the service
conditions for which the petitioner is entitled for the extraordinary family
pension.
Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed the reply. In
the reply, the claim of the petitioner is being contested by the respondents.
In the reply, it has been mentioned that after the death of the late husband of
the petitioner on 03.07.2010, a postmortem was conducted on 04.07.2010
and cause of death was stated to be due to shock following hemorrhage
from "Oesophageal varices as sequel of liver disease", which according to
the respondents is not covered under Rule 3A (i) (b) of the Central Service
(Extraordinary Pension), hence, the claim of the petitioner is liable to be
rejected.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
The question which arise in the present petition is whether, the
cause of death is due to the conditions of service under which the husband
of the petitioner worked. Concededly, the husband of the petitioner was
2 of 5
medically examined at the time of the recruitment and he was found fit and
was not suffering from any liver problem. It is not a case that in case a liver
problem was suffered by the husband of the petitioner at the time of his
recruitment was such that it was not detectable. The husband of the
petitioner was working in Assam under such conditions, which can
deteriorate the health of an employee. Once, the husband of the petitioner
suffered the ailments while in service, the same has to be attributed to the
service in question keeping in view the settled principle of law settled by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4949 of 2013 titled
as Dharamvir Singh versus Union of India and others, decided on
02.07.2013. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while interpreting the
similar provisions, held that where an employee who was found fit at the
time of recruitment but suffered the ailment during the service, the same has
to be attributed to the service. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment
is as under:-
"32. In spite of the aforesaid provisions, the Pension
Sanctioning Authority failed to notice that the Medical Board
had not given any reason in support of its opinion, particularly
when there is no note of such disease or disability available in
the service record of the appellant at the time of acceptance for
military service. Without going through the aforesaid facts the
Pension Sanctioning Authority mechanically passed the
impugned order of rejection based on the report of the Medical
Board. As per Rules 5 and 9 of 'Entitlement Rules for Casualty
Pensionary Awards, 1982', the appellant is entitled for
presumption and benefit of presumption in his favour. In
absence of any evidence on record to show that the appellant
was suffering from "Genrealised seizure (Epilepsy)" at the
time of acceptance of his service, it will be presumed that the
3 of 5
appellant was in sound physical and mental condition at the
time of entering the service and deterioration in his health has
taken place due to service.
33. As per Rule 423(a) of General Rules for the purpose
of determining a question whether the cause of a disability or
death resulting from disease is or is not attributable to service,
it is immaterial whether the cause giving rise to the disability
or death occurred in an area declared to be a field
service/active service area or under normal peace conditions.
"Classification of diseases" have been prescribed at Chapter
IV of Annexure I; under paragraph 4 post traumatic epilepsy
and other mental changes resulting from head injuries have
been shown as one of the diseases affected by training,
marching, prolonged standing etc. Therefore, the presumption
would be that the disability of the appellant bore a casual
connection with the service conditions.
34. In view of the finding as recorded above, we have no
option but to set aside the impugned order passed by the
Division Bench dated 31st July, 2009 in LPA No.26 of 2004
and uphold the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 20th
May, 2004. The impugned order is set aside and accordingly
the appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the
appellant the benefit in terms of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in accordance with law within three
months if not yet paid, else they shall be liable to pay interest
as per order passed by the learned Single Judge. No costs."
In the present case also, the Board has not given any medical
report that the husband of the petitioner was suffering from the disease at
the time of the recruitment. In the absence of any such finding by the
Medical Board, once, the husband of the petitioner was hale and hearty and
medically fit at the time of joining the duties, the ailment suffered by him is
to be treated as an ailment due to the service conditions. Further, the
4 of 5
respondents in their reply has also not mentioned as to why, the ailment
being suffered by the late husband of the petitioner, which was cause of the
death, was not attributable to the service concerned. Merely a statement has
been mentioned without supporting the same with the reasons.
Once, no reason has been put forward by the respondents to
decline the benefit to the petitioner of extraordinary pension, the said bald
statement of the respondents cannot be taken as a valid ground to decline
the plea of the petitioner.
Keeping in view the above, the claim of the petitioner is
squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Dharamvir Singh's case (supra) and needs to be allowed. The petitioner is
held entitled for the extraordinary pension as the death of the husband of the
petitioner was due to an ailment which was suffered by him during the
service and has to be attributable to the said service and the claim of the
petitioner is covered under category B of the guidelines issued for the grant
of extraordinary family pension, which are in effect since 01.01.1996. The
respondents are directed to compute the benefit for which the petitioner is
entitled for the grant of extraordinary pension within a period of two months
from the receipt of copy of this order and the amount so calculated be
released to the petitioner within one month thereafter.
The present writ petition is allowed in above terms.
July 05, 2022 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
5 of 5
