BINA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner-Bina impugning the legality of order dtd. 9/2/2016 (Annexure P-1), rendered by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred to as "Tribunal"), in Original Application No. 740/PB/2012 titled "Bina v. Union of India and others" (hereinafter to be referred to as "OA"), in terms of which, petitioner had challenged order dtd. 15/2/2012 (Annexure A-4) passed by respondent No. 3, whereby claim of petitioner for grant of ex gratia lumpsum compensation on account of death of her husband during the course of employment was declined and the above said OA moved by applicant-Bina (petitioner herein) has been dismissed. Besides that petitioner has also impugned the legality of order dtd. 3/5/2016 (Annexure P-9) rendered by the Tribunal, in terms of which, Review Application No. 060/00016/2016 moved by her in the above said OA, has been dismissed.

(2.) Petitioner's case, in brief, is that she is widow of Jagdeva who was working as Farm Hand in the Military Farm Pathankot Cantonment and he died on 17/11/2010 while in service. On the fateful day, he felt acute pain in chest and then his colleagues took him to the hospital but on the way he breathed his last. To this effect colleagues of Jagdeva (since deceased) had informed the Officer In-charge, Military Farm Pathankot Cantonment, vide information (Annexure A-1). Copy of death certificate of Jagdeva is Annexure A-2. Apart from that petitioner had incurred huge amount on the treatment of her husband-Jagdeva (since deceased).

(3.) On notice, respondents-Union of India have filed detailed reply wherein it is contended that Jagdeva (since deceased) joined the service on 16/3/1989. As a matter of fact, petitioner had concealed the material fact as he was having history of illness and availed as many as 92 days' medical leave in the years 2009 and 2010. He suffered heart attack on 17/11/2010 and died. At the relevant time, he was working as Farm Hand in the Military Farm, Pathankot Cantonment. Petitioner herself has admitted that she had incurred huge amount on the treatment of her husband and these facts are clear indicative that Jagdeva (since deceased) was suffering from acute illness. Despite the fact that facilities of Government Hospital/Military Hospital were available to Jagdeva (since deceased) but in order to conceal his disease, he chose to take treatment from private hospital. It is contended that claim of petitioner for grant of ex gratia lumpsum compensation was considered and rightly declined vide order dtd. 15/2/2012 on the ground that Jagdeva had died due to heart attack and not in an accident. Rule 3-A (1)(b) of the Rules, provides that the death of an employee 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 a disease which was attributable to Government service; or (ii) the aggravation by the Government service of a wound, injury or disease which existed before or arose during the Government service. For attribute ability or aggravation, there should be a casual connection with (a) disablement and Government service and (b) death and the Government service. As Jagdeva (since deceased) was having history of illness, as he availed 92 days' medical leave in the years 2009-2010 just before his death and he was placed in the cultivation duty as Chowkidar for protection of crops over small patch of land and as such job of Farm Hand being routine one did not involve 'trying circumstances' or 'risk in the performance of the duty', which work cannot be considered as a hard duty and, thus, cause of death of Jagdeva has no casual connection with the performance of his duty. Further it is contended that as petitioner is claiming ex gratia lumpsum compensation and the remedy for grant of said compensation is available under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, before exhausting said remedy instant writ petition is not maintainable. In this view of the matter, Tribunal has rightly declined the claim of petitioner. In this manner, respondents have categorically denied the claim of petitioner and prayed for dismissal of instant writ petition.