C.W.P.No.3149 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.3149 of 1993 Date of Decision:-29.11.2011 Mustak Khan No.850787262 Ex.CT-GD ...Petitioner Versus Director General, Central Reserve Police Force & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.C.L.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Karminder Singh, Advocate for the respondents. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that petitioner Mustak Khan joined as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (for brevity “the CRPF”) on 9.7.1985 and successfully completed his training. He claimed that during the course of his duties, he sustained head injury, damaging his eye sight. He was declared permanently incapacitated for further service by the Chief Medical Officer (for short “the CMO”). After giving a notice of invalidation, he was discharged from service on 20.12.1988 in this context. 2. The case set up by the petitioner, in brief in so far as relevant, was that he submitted an application for grant of pension, but his claim was negatived by the respondents on 31.3.1989. The order was challenged by him in CWP No.13483 of 1989, which came to be disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, by virtue of order dated 24.10.1989 (Annexure P1), which, in substance, is as under:- “The petitioner is seeking pension which has been disallowed, vide annexure P-3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even if the C.W.P.No.3149 of 1993 -2- petitioner is not entitled to pension, he is entitled to the alternative relief of another job which he is fit to do. No such request was made by the petitioner to the authorities concerned. It is directed that as and when any such request by way of representation is made, the same will be considered and a speaking order under the Rules be passed within three months from the date of receipt of the representation. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.” 3. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner moved the representation for alternative job, but the same was rejected as well, on the ground that his rehabilitation into alternative job in CRPF, who is suffering from very low vision, would not be in the interest of force where people have to be physically fit, mentally alert, emotionally balanced at all the times & on all occasions and his permanent disability. Faced with the situation, the petitioner claimed the benefit of extraordinary pension. 4. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the petitioner that since he suffered the head injury during the course of his duties, which damaged his eye sight and the injury is directly attributable to the Government duty, so, he is entitled to extraordinary pension as per The Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules (hereinafter to be referred as “the relevant rules”) and instructions dated 31.7.1989 (Annexure P8) issued by the Home Ministry. The benefit of extraordinary pension was stated to have illegally been denied to him by the respondents without any cogent reason. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to grant extraordinary pension to him in this relevant connection. 5. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner and filed written statement, wherein it was admitted that he sustained injury. In the wake of Court of Inquiry, it was established that the injury sustained was directly attributable to the Government and in discharge of his official duties. He was declared permanently incapacitated for further service by the CMO. The case of C.W.P.No.3149 of 1993 -3- the petitioner for grant of pension was claimed to have been duly considered and rejected by the competent authority. However, it was pleaded that as the nexus and casual connection between disablement & Government service is not found to have been established, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of disability pension under the relevant Rules. It will not be out of place to mention here the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this regard. 7. As is evident from the record that, during the course of duties, the petitioner suffered head injury, damaging his eye sight. He was declared permanently incapacitated for further service by the CMO. After giving a notice of invalidation, he was discharged from service on 20.12.1988. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the indicated injury sustained by the petitioner is directly attributable to his Government duty. Rule 9 of the relevant rules postulates that when disablement of a Government servant is conceded as due to Government service in terms of Rule 3-A, he shall be awarded disability pension in terms of sub-rule (2) or (3) or lump sum compensation in terms of sub-rule (4) of this Rule in accordance with the percentage of disability (suffered by him) as certified by the Medical Authority concerned. 8. Not only that, in order to supplement the rules, the Director General of CRPF issued the instructions dated 31.7.1989 (Annexure P8), which further posits that the cases of illness or injury due to accident or death while on duty will be covered by extraordinary pension rules. As per these rules, if any concerned person becomes disabled due to illness or accident, then he will be given the benefit of service pension alongwith disabled pension. C.W.P.No.3149 of 1993 -4- 9. A conjoint and meaningful reading of the relevant rules and instructions (Annexure P8) would reveal that if the injury suffered by any person is directly attributable to his official duties, then, he is entitled to the benefit of extraordinary pension. 10. As indicated earlier, since the indicated injury sustained by the petitioner is directly attributable to his official duties, so, to me, he is entitled to the benefit of extraordinary pension and instructions (Annexure P8). The respondents have illegally denied the same to him without any legal basis. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is accepted with costs. Consequently, all the orders/communications, having the effect of non- grant of benefit of extraordinary pension to the petitioner, are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to calculate the extraordinary pension, as per the indicated relevant rules/instructions and to make payment to him alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of his entitlement of benefit of extraordinary pension, within a period of three months in this relevant direction. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 29.11.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No