NEENA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the widow of late Havildar/G.D. Dev Raj, who was serving with the C.R.P.F. The instant writ petition has been filed being aggrieved of the action of the respondent-authorities in not having granted the benefit of ex-gratia lump sum compensation as also extraordinary special family pension. Further challenge in the petition is to the order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P-6), whereby the claim of the petitioner for benefits under the Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme has been rejected.

(2.) Factually it is undisputed that late husband of the petitioner was enlisted with the C.R.P.F on 1.4.1990. He was granted 15 days casual leave w.e.f. 18.2.2008 to 8.3.2008. He was also issued a Railway Warrant dated 16.2.2008 for journey from his place of posting in Assam to Nangal Dam and return journey. Husband of the petitioner while returning to his place of posting died during the course of journey on 8.3.2008. A postmortem examination of the body was carried out at Patna Medical College, Patna on 9.3.2008 and the opinion regarding cause of death was kept pending subject to the viscera report from the Forensic Science Laboratory. On the date of death, late husband of the petitioner had to his credit a qualifying service of 17 years 11 months and 8 days. Petitioner was sanctioned family pension at normal rates and was paid the death-cum-retirement gratuity on 10.10.2008. Petitioner received order dated 12.11.2008, whereby the claim for grant of benefits under Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme has been rejected citing the basis that the petitioner had died a natural death on account of heart attack. It has been pleaded that the petitioner submitted a number of representations for grant of ex-gratia lump sum compensation as also for the grant of extraordinary special family pension but since no response was forthcoming, hence, her hands were constrained to approach this Court by way of filing of the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Rajeev Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while opening the arguments, has, at the very outset, made a statement that he is not addressing arguments as regards the validity of the impugned order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P-6) is concerned and as such is not pressing the claim of the petitioner as regards benefits under the Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme is concerned. Counsel would, however, vehemently argue that the petitioner has been denied the special benefits in the nature of ex-gratia lump sum compensation as also extraordinary special family pension without any basis as the husband of the petitioner had died during the course of performance of his duties. It has been argued that late husband of the petitioner was on sanctioned casual leave and his death that has occurred during the course of journey while reporting back to his place of posting would be covered under the expression "course of performance of duties" and as such there was a casual connection between the death and govt. service.