Dismissed

Ranjana Bhaskar Anasane v. the Director General Crpf Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and Others

Bombay HC26 Feb 2018WP/3365/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged orders rejecting a claim for ex-gratia compensation and extraordinary pension for her deceased son, a CRPF constable who died in a railway accident. The High Court found the death occurred while the constable traveled unauthorizedly after leaving camp without permission.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was rejected; the impugned orders were not quashed; rule discharged.

Ranjana Bhaskar Anasane Vs the Director… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp3365.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3365 OF 2016

¶6

Smt. Ranjana w/o Bhaskar Anasane,
Age-63 years, Occu:Housewife,
R/o-Survey No.2481/1, BPL No.12,
Nagsen Nagar, Near Rameshwar Colony,
Mehrlin, Jalgaon (Maharashtra)

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1) The Director General, CRPF,
 Ministry of Home Affairs,
 CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
 New Delhi-110 003,

¶10

2) The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
 Central Reserved Police Force,
 Group Centre, CRPF,
 Talegaon, Pune-410 507,
 (Maharashtra State),

¶11

3) The Inspector General of Police,
 M.P., Sector CRPF, Bhopal,
 (Madhya Pradesh),

¶12

4) The Commandant,
 89 Bn, Central Reserved
 Police Force, New Delhi.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

 ...
 Mr.Sujeet D. Joshi Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.Bhushan Kulkarni, Standing Counsel for
 Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶15

wp3365.16

¶16

¶17

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
 S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

¶18

DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 6TH FEBRUARY, 2018.

¶19

 DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 26TH FEBRUARY, 2018.

¶20

JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:

¶21

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.

¶22

2.This Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is filed with following
substantive prayers:

¶23

“B) By issue of Writ of certiorari or
any other appropriate writ, order or
direction in the like nature, the
impugned order dated 21.11.2013 as well
as the order dated 18.12.2014, passed
by the respondent No.2 may kindly be
quashed and set-aside.

¶24

wp3365.16

¶25

¶26

C) By issue of Writ of certiorari

¶27

or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction in the like nature, the
respondent No.1 to 4 may kindly be
directed to grant the ex-gratia
compensation to the petitioner in
accordance with the guidelines and
conditions contained in the office
memorandum dated 11.9.1998, issued by
the Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions.

¶28

D)By issue of Writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ, order or
direction in the like nature, the
respondents No.1 to 4 may kindly be
directed to grant/ sanction the
extraordinary pension to the petitioner
within such period along with arrears
as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.”

¶29

3.The brief facts, giving rise to this
Petition, can be stated as under:

¶30

.As per offer of employment dated 19th
February, 2013, the son of Petitioner namely,

¶31

wp3365.16

¶32

¶33

Parmeshwar Bhaskar Anasane was offered employment
as a Constable GD in response to the recruitment
process held in the year 2012 by the Respondents.
The same was accepted by Parmeshwar. On 20th
March, 2013 the son of Petitioner had joined the
duties as Constable GD in the pay scale of
Rs.5200-20200. Amongst the other duties, the duty
of deceased Parmeshwar was to visit the temple and
carry out its regular day to day maintenance,
performance of pooja etc. Parmeshwar was required
to perform the said job even on holidays like
Sunday or any other public holidays. Deceased
Parmeshwar has performed such duties from 20th
March, 2013 upto 25th August, 2013. On completion
of training of about six months, son of the
Petitioner was to be sent for basic training at
RTC, Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh.

¶34

4.It is contended by the Petitioner that on

¶35

25th August, 2013, deceased Parmeshwar had been to
the place of his duty for the purpose of

¶36

wp3365.16

¶37

¶38

performing pooja and maintenance of Temple as
usual. He has attended the Temple up-to 10.00
hours and thereafter, upon the verbal permission
of the BHM Dilip Kumar (HC/GD), Parmeshwar has
left for his home. Thereafter, as per the
information received from the office of Station
Master, Dehu Road Railway Station, Pune,
Parmeshwar met with an accident in between Dehu
Road and Akurdi Railway Station. This incident had
taken place while Parmeshwar was returning from
the duties. Therefore, Parmeshwar succumbed to the
accidental death on the same day i.e. 25th August,

¶39

2013. Thereafter, office of Respondent No.2 has
constituted the Court of Inquiry under
communication dated 31st August, 2013 to inquire

¶40

into the circumstances under which Parmeshwar has
expired and to fix the responsibility. In the said

¶41

Court of Inquiry, Respondent No.2 has deduced as
many as five conclusions which are in favour of
the Respondents.

¶42

wp3365.16

¶43

¶44

5.It is submitted by the Petitioner that
the Circular dated 11th September, 1998 issued by
the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pension, lays down the
conditions and guidelines for paying ex-gratia
compensation to the family of deceased CRPF
employees. The conclusions have been drawn by the
Court of Inquiry, without any notice/ knowledge to
the family members and the same are not in
conformity with the parameters fixed for paying
the ex-gratia compensation. The Respondent
authority has made an effort to draw the
conclusions adverse to the interest of the family
members of the Petitioner to avoid the payment of
ex-gratia compensation. The Petitioner has made
representation to Respondent No.2 for payment of
ex-gratia compensation and extra ordinary pension.
It is submitted that by communication dated 18th
December, 2014 Respondent No.2 has rejected the
claim of the Petitioner for grant of ex-gratia
compensation. Hence this Petition.

¶45

wp3365.16

¶46

¶47

6. Learned counsel appearing for the

¶48

Petitioner, relying upon the grounds taken in the
Petition, submits that neither the Petitioner nor
any one from her family were given an opportunity
to substantiate their claim for grant of ex-gratia
compensation. For want of opportunity of hearing
or an opportunity to substantiate the claim, the
conclusions drawn by the Court of Inquiry deserves

¶49

to be ignored in totality. It is submitted that
there is no record to show that, there are any
notings with the Respondents as regards the
deceased Parmeshwar having left the premises
without permission. Therefore the office order
dated 21st November, 2013 and the impugned
communication dated 18th December, 2014 deserve
to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel
further submits that the family of the deceased is
also entitled for grant of extraordinary pension

¶50

and there has been total inaction as regards
processing the said claim even as on today.

¶51

wp3365.16

¶52

¶53

Learned counsel therefore prayed that the Petition
deserves to be allowed.

¶54

7.On the other hand, learned counsel

¶55

appearing for the Respondents, referring to the
affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the
Respondents submits that on 25th August, 2013
Parmeshwar had attended Pooja at Mandir upto 10.00
hours and after that HC/GD Dilip Kumar, BHM had
given verbal permission to 10 recruits including
Parmeshwar Bhaskar Anasane, to meet their
relatives at Gate No.2 from where Parmeshwar had

¶56

left the Group Center CRPF, Pune Campus without
permission of the competent authority and further
proceeded to Pune City by Local Train at his own.
As per telephonic information received from
Station Master, Dehu Road Railway Station,
Parmeshwar met with an accident in between Dehu
Road and Akurdi Railway Station while performing

¶57

journey in Local Train No.99811, Lonawala-Pune,
and expired on 25th August, 2013 at 12.36 hours.

¶58

wp3365.16

¶59

¶60

It is submitted that as per instructions,
immediate financial assistance of Rs.15,000/- was
paid to the Petitioner from the Welfare Fund of
Group Centre CRPF, Pune.

¶61

8.Learned counsel further submitted that

¶62

Court of Inquiry was constituted to inquire into
the circumstances under which Parmeshwar expired
on 25th August, 2013. It was revealed in the Court
of Inquiry Proceedings that Parmeshwar absconded
from the Group Center, CRPF, Pune Campus without
permission of the competent authority and further
proceeded to Pune city by local Train at his own.
As per information received from Station Master,
Dehu Road Railway Station, Parmeshwar met with an
accident in between Dehu Road and Akurdi Railway
Station. It is submitted that, reportedly,
Parmeshwar was leaning outside the local train and
dashed with an electric pole and succumbed to his

¶63

injuries on 25th August, 2013 at about 12.36
hours. As per the medical certificate/ postmortem

¶64

wp3365.16

¶65

¶66

report, the probable cause of death of Parmeshwar
was shock and haemorrhage due to grievous injury

¶67

to vital organs and skull involving frontal right
temporal pavital occipital bone and brain crushed
by railway accident while performing his journey
in local train. The injury was sustained while
performing journey in local train and succumbed to
his head injury/ hemorrhage for which none is held
responsible. The Risk Fund Final payment lump sum
amounting to Rs.9,00,000/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs) has
been paid to the Petitioner. Family pension @

¶68

Rs.3500/- p.m. plus DA, Medical Allowance @
Rs.300/- p.m. DCRG Rs.32,148/- vide PPO
No.23904140256 dated 28th February, 204 and GIS
Rs.30,000/- and Leave Encashment Rs.5358/- have
also been paid to the Petitioner.

¶69

9.It is submitted that the Petitioner has

¶70

filed this Petition seeking ex-gratia compensation

¶71

for Rs.10 Lakhs and extraordinary pension. The

¶72

main condition to be satisfied for the payment of

¶73

wp3365.16

¶74

¶75

the Extra Ordinary Pension as well as ex gratia
lump-sumcompensationinthespecified
circumstances is that, the death of the employee
concerned should have occurred in the actual
performance of bona fide official duties. Nexus

¶76

and casual connection between the death and
Government service are to be established. In the
instant case, Parmeshwar left from the campus at
his own without any leave or permission of the
competent authority and met with an accident while
performing journey in local train and expired,
which is not attributable to risk of

¶77

Office/Department for which the individual himself
was responsible. The nexus or casual connection
between the death and Government service has not

¶78

been established in the Court of Inquiry. Hence
the Petitioner is not entitled to get the
consequential benefits as admissible under CCS
(EOP) Rules in this case. All terminal benefits
including Family Pension under CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 have been extended to the Petitioner.

¶79

wp3365.16

¶80

¶81

10.Learned counsel further submitted that

¶82

the Petitioner is only entitled to get the
pensionary benefits as admissible under the CCS
(Pension) Rules which are correctly granted by
the competent authority. All the action taken by
the Respondents are in conformity to the
Government orders/ instructions, hence the
contention of the Petitioner is baseless.
Therefore it is submitted that the Petition may be
rejected.

¶83

11.We have carefully considered the

¶84

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner and learned counsel appearing for
the Respondents. With their able assistance, we
have perused the grounds taken in the Petition,
annexures thereto, and the affidavit in reply
filed on behalf of the Respondents.

¶85

12.At the outset it would be apt to

¶86

wp3365.16

¶87

¶88

reproduce herein below the scheme, namely,
"Liberalized Scheme of Payment of Ex-gratia Lump-
sum Compensation to Families of Central Government
Civilian Employees Who Die in Harness", introduced
vide Circular dated 11th September, 1998, under
the provisions of which scheme the Petitioner is
claiming ex-gratia compensation:-

¶89

"Category-'B':- Death or disability due

¶90

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
extremeweatherconditionsor
occupational hazards resulting in death
or disability would be examples.

¶91

Category-'C':- Death or disability due
to accident in the performance of
duties. Some examples are accidents
while travelling on duty in Government
vehicles or public transport, a journey
on duty is performed by service
aircraft, mishaps at sea, electrocution

¶92

wp3365.16

¶93

¶94

while on duty etc.

¶95

Category-'D':- Death or disability,
attributable to acts of violence by
terrorists, antisocial elements, etc.,
whether in their performance of duties
or otherwise. Apart from cases of death
or injury sustained by personnel of the
Central Police Organizations while
employed in aid of the civil
administration in quelling agitation,
riots or revolt by demonstrators, other
publicservantsincludingpolice
personnel, etc., bomb blasts in public
places or transports, indiscriminate
shooting incidents in public, etc.,
would be covered under this category.

¶96

Category 'E':- Death or disability
arising as a result of (a) attack by or
during action against extremists,
antisocial elements, etc.... and (b)
enemy action in international war or
borderskirmishesandwarlike
situations, including cases which are
attributable to (i) extremists acts,
exploding mines, etc., while on way to

¶97

wp3365.16

¶98

¶99

an operational area (ii) kidnapping by
extremists;and(iii)battle
inoculation."

¶100

.It is the contention of the Petitioner
that Petitioner's case is covered under Category
"C".

¶101

13.It appears that office of Respondent No.2

¶102

has constituted the Court of Inquiry under
communication dated 31st August, 2013 to enquire

¶103

into the circumstances under which Parmeshwar has
expired and to fix the responsibility. Upon going
through the Court of Inquiry (COI) Proceedings,
Respondent No.2 has deduced about five
conclusions, which reads as under:-

¶104

"(i) The responsibility of the accident
wasfixedupontheindividual
(Parmeshwar) himself.

¶105

(ii) That, there is no nexus or casual
connection between the death and

¶106

wp3365.16

¶107

¶108

Government duty,

¶109

(iii) That, the family of the deceased
was held entitled to get pensionary
benefits as admissible under CCS
(Pension) Rules.

¶110

(iv) Outstanding dues, if any, against
the Constable GD to be recovered from
his payable dues.

¶111

(v) In order to avoid such recurrence
in future, the newly appointed RTS
should not ordinarily be allowed to
proceed outside Group Centre, CRPF,
Pune Campus."

¶112

14.The Petitioner has grievance about the
conclusion Nos. (i), (ii) and (v) arrived in the
said Court of Inquiry Proceedings. According to
the Petitioner, in the said inquiry no opportunity
was given to the Petitioner or any family member

¶113

of deceased Parmeshwar to put forth the stand/
contention on behalf of deceased Parmeshwar.
However, learned counsel appearing for the

¶114

wp3365.16

¶115

¶116

Petitioner has not brought any provision to our
notice which provides for affording an opportunity
of hearing to the family members of deceased
employee. In absence of bringing such provision to
the notice of this Court, we find it difficult to
accept the contention that in the said inquiry an
opportunity should have been given to the
Petitioner or other family members of deceased
Parmeshwar to put forth their contentions.

¶117

15.In order to find out whether the

¶118

Petitioner would be entitled for ex-gratia
compensation, keeping in view the afore mentioned

¶119

circular and in particular Category 'C' thereof,
we have summoned the original record maintained by

¶120

the office of the Respondents in relation to
inquiry conducted by the Court of Inquiry (COI).
During the said inquiry statement of superior
officer of deceased Parmeshwar, namely, HC/GD

¶121

Dilip Kumar, (BHM) has been recorded. It appears
that certain questions were asked to said officer

¶122

wp3365.16

¶123

¶124

during the course of inquiry. It is stated by
Dilip Kumar that on 25th August, 2013 at 9.00 a.m.

¶125

he has taken round in the temple and at that time
deceased Parmeshwar was present in "Mandir Marka".

¶126

In reply to question asked to said officer,
whether said Parmeshwar (now deceased) was sent
by him out of the Camp, the officer stated that
all the trainees were sent for cleaning purpose
and, at that time in all ten trainees, requested

¶127

to permit them to go to Gate No.2 to meet their
relatives. In said ten trainees, one of them was
Parmeshwar. When specific question was asked to

¶128

the officer, whether he is aware that new trainees
cannot be sent out of Camp without pass, in reply
to said question the officer replied that, he is
aware about such procedure but he allowed said ten
trainees to go up-to Gate No.2 only. Further
specific question was asked to him, by whose
permission Parmeshwar Bhaskar went to local
Railway Station/ Rail. In reply to said question
the officer replied that, Parmeshwar went up to

¶129

wp3365.16

¶130

¶131

Gate No.2 to meet relative and from Gate No.2,
without taking any body's permission, Parmeshwar
went to Dehu Road Railway Station and boarded in
Lonawala-Pune local Train.

¶132

16.Therefore, the statement of the Officer,
namely Dilip Kumar, makes it clear that deceased
Parmeshwar, without permission, went from Gate
No.2 of the Camp to the Railway Station and
boarded in the local Train i.e. Lonawala-Pune
Train. In that view of the matter, we cannot
accept the contention of the counsel appearing for

¶133

the Petitioner that Parmeshwar died during the
course of his employment and therefore the family
members of deceased Parmeshwar are entitled for

¶134

ex-gratia payment by invoking Category 'C' of the
Categories stipulated in above referred Circular.
It cannot be said that death of Parmeshwar was due

¶135

to accident in the performance of duties.
Admittedly, as contended by the Respondents, all
the monetary dues payable to the Petitioner, are

¶136

wp3365.16

¶137

¶138

already paid to the Petitioner, including Risk
Fund Final Payment amounting to Rs.9,00,000/-,
Family Pension @ Rs.3500/- per month plus D.A.,
Medical Allowance @ Rs.300/- per month, DCRG
Rs.30,000/- and Leave Encashment of Rs.5358/-.

¶139

Only ex-gratia payment is not paid to the
Petitioner as the Petitioner is not entitled to
receive the same.

¶140

Petition, keeping in view the entire record of the
case, we are unable to persuade ourselves to grant

¶141

any relief in favour of the Petitioner.

¶142

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands rejected.
Rule stands discharged.

¶143

[S.M. GAVHANE, J.] 2 [S.S. SHINDE,
J.]

¶144

asb/FEB18

Ranjana Bhaskar Anasane v. the Director General Crpf Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjana Bhaskar Anasane v. the Director General Crpf Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajanan Nilkanthrao Bande Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Maharashi Vithal Ramaji Shinde Shikshan Sanstha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Datta Chhaganrao Shingare Vs Union of India and Ors.

Deepak Ramdas Salunke Vs Kavita Deepak Salunke

Kamal Bhaurao Nawade Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Arun Ananda Bhil (Malche) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others