Union of India & Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunbal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh & Anr.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Union of India and others have filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 1.3.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'), whereby the Original Application filed by respondent No.2-Manjit Kaur for setting aside the order dated 24.9.2010 (Annexure A-1) passed by the petitioners rejecting her prayer to grant ex- gratia lump sum compensation of ` 10.00 lacs, has been allowed. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned order. Undisputedly, in the present case, the husband of respondent No.2 was working as Sub Post Master in Post Office, Malout in district Muktsar. He was provided the official accommodation on the first floor of the post office so that he may collect the postal bags reached through rail for C.W.P. No.10885 of 2012 -2- their prompt delivery to the public on the next day. In order to provide clean drinking water facility to the visitors of post office, a water cooler with RO system was installed in the post office, and the water in the water cooler used to come through a water tank installed on the roof of the first floor of the building. On 29.5.2008 at about 9.00 AM (during the office time) the husband of respondent No.2 had gone on the roof of the first floor in order to check the water in the water tank. Unfortunately, he fell down from the roof and suffered severe injuries, and ultimately on the night of 29.5.2008 he expired due to those injuries. As her husband had died in harness, respondent No.2 applied for payment of ex-gratia lump sum compensation under the Instructions dated 11.09.1998 (Annexure R-1) issued by the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare, Government of India, which provide that if the Central Government civilian employees die in harness in the performance of their bona fide official duties under various circumstances, their families can be paid ex-gratia lump sum compensation. Those Instructions were further modified vide Instructions dated 2.9.2008 (Annexure A-2) issued by the Government. Under modified Instructions, the ex-gratia lump sum compensation amount on account of death occurring due to accidents in the course of performance of duties was revised and according to the revised instructions, respondent No.2 was entitled to ` 10.00 lacs as ex-gratia lump sum compensation. But the petitioners without any justification vide letter/order dated 24.9.2010 rejected the claim of respondent No.2 on the ground that her husband was not performing any official duty at the time of C.W.P. No.10885 of 2012 -3- his falling from the roof of the first floor of the building of the post office. The learned Tribunal has vide its order dated 1.3.2012 set aside the said letter/order and held that since the deceased employee had died in harness in the performance of his official duties at the time of accident, his legal heirs are entitled for ex-gratia lump sum compensation. The said order has been challenged in this petition. During the course of arguments, it has not been disputed that the deceased employee was living in the official accommodation provided to him on the first floor of the post office. On the day of occurrence, in order to check the water level in the water tank, he had gone on the roof at about 9.00 AM from where he accidentally fell down and consequently died. On the basis of the DDR recorded by the police on the very same day, the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the husband of respondent No.2 went on the roof at 9.00 AM during office time to check the water level in the water tank to ensure the proper supply of water to the people who used to come in the post office. During the course of said act, he fell down from the roof and suffered severe injuries due to which he died on the same night on 29.5.2008. In our opinion, at that time, he was performing/discharging his official duty. In these facts, the case of respondent No.2 squarely falls under Clause 11(a) of the revised Instructions dated 2.9.2008, which reads as under:- “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: C.W.P. No.10885 of 2012 -4- (a) Death occurring due to accidents in the Rs.10.00 lakh course of performance of duties (b) Death occurring in the course of Rs.10.00 lakh performance of duties attributable to acts of violence by terrorists, anti- social elements, etc. (c) Death occurring (a) enemy action Rs.15.00 lakh in international war or border skirmishes and (b) action against militants, terrorists etc. (d) Death occurring while on duty in the Rs.15.00 lakh specified high altitude, inaccessible border posts, etc. on account of natural disasters, extreme weather conditions. The Department of Pension & PW O.M.No.45/55/97- P&PW(C) dated 11.9.1998 shall stand modified to this extent.” Learned counsel for the petitioners could not explain how the case of respondent No.2 did not fall in Clause 11(a) of the aforesaid Instructions, and also could not point out any illegality in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the husband of respondent No.2 had died in harness while performing the official duties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we cannot take a different view. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal directing the petitioners to make payment of ` 10.00 lacs to respondent No.2. No merit. Dismissed. May 30, 2012 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE ( T. P. S. MANN ) JUDGE