1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5127 OF 2009 Govind Shriram Pratyeki ..Petitioner V/s. Union of India & ors ..Respondents Mr.Balasaheb Deshmukh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.K.R.Choudhari a/w.Mr.N.R.Prajapati, Advocate, for the respondents CORAM : S.B.MHASE & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has been removed from the services of the respondents  Central Reserve Police Force on account of the invalidation which was certified by the Medical Board of Composite Hospital, CRPF, Pune  7. Now the respondents have filed an Affidavit stating that all the amounts due 2 to the petitioner on his removal from service has been paid to the petitioner except the Leave Encashment. They further submitted that the bill regarding Leave Encashment has already been submitted to the Pay and Accounts Office, Delhi, and whenever it is sanctioned, the said amount would be paid to the petitioner. On such Affidavit being filed and the statement being made across the bar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an objection that the petitioner is entitled for the Extra Ordinary Pension (EOP). We have perused the provisions for Extra Ordinary Pension (EOP) and as per the provisions this pension is applicable only to the person, who is a Government servant and dies on duty and/or for the injury. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was on duty or on some mission. The second objection which is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for the Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme (GPAIS). The said Scheme was 3 introduced in the month of September, 2005. The petitioner claims that he has paid premium towards the above said Scheme. It appears that the respondents have entered into an Agreement with the three Insurance Companies namely United India Insurance Company, National Insurance Company and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited. Therefore, the amount which was deducted from the pay and salary of the petitioner would never be for the group policies from these Companies. Admittedly, the petitioner had suffered old fracture in the year 2004, which is referred in the Medical Report i.e. prior to the introduction of the Scheme and therefore, there cannot be any contractual obligation in the Insurance Companies to compensate the petitioner. Hence, the claim has been rightly rejected by the respondents. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no medical benefits have been provided to the petitioner after his removal from service. The learned counsel for the respondents 4 submitted that at the time of removal from service, a person is entitled to give an option and the petitioner has given an option of cash amount and accordingly, the cash amount is being paid to the petitioner alongwith the invalidation pension. Therefore, we find that the contentions raised by the petitioner are without any merit and they are not sustainable in law. 3. Under these circumstances, we find that there is no merit in the above Writ Petition which is accordingly rejected. ( R.M.SAVANT, J.) ( S.B.MHASE, J. )