CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1460 OF 1997 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India SMT.MANORMA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE AWADH PRASAD SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LAKHIPUR POLICE STATION BAKHTIARPUR, DISTRICT PATNA --------------------(Petitioner) Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAWAN NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, EASTERN RAILWAY, 14, STRAND ROAD, P.S. HARE STREET, CALCUTTA. 3. THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, EASTERN RAILWAY, DANAPUR DIVISION, DANAPUR(KHAGAUL) DIST. PATNA ---------------(Respondents) ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rang Nath Choubey, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N. Sinha, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the Railways. 2. Petitioner is the widow of late Awadh Prasad Sharma who died on 23.7.1992 while serving as Constable in the Railway Protection Force (hereinafter referred to as the RPF), as is evident from the special report dated 29.7.1992, Annexure-2. With reference to special report dated 29.7.1992 recommendation for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was made by the Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF under recommendation dated 25.11.1992, Annexure-3. In the light of the recommendation dated - 2 - 25.11.1992, Annexure-3 petitioner was provided with employment on compassionate ground and is presently serving as Grade-IV employee with the RPF. 3. Present petition has been filed praying inter alia to set aside the order of the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF, Eastern Railway, Calcutta dated 22.8.1995, Annexure-1, whereunder lawyer of the petitioner was informed that petitioner is not entitled for any compensation on account of death of her husband on 23.7.1992 in terms of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923(hereinafter referred to as the Act) as the members of the RPF, which is armed force of the Union of India with effect from 20.9.1985 are not entitled for such compensation. Compensation under the provisions of the Act can be allowed to a workman, as defined under Sub-Section-(1)(n) of Section-2 of the Act. Husband of the petitioner being a constable in the RPF was not a workman within the meaning of the Act, petitioner cannot be allowed such compensation. In the circumstances, I do not see any illegality in the order dated 22.8.1995, Annexure-1. 4. Counsel for the petitioner, however submitted that Government of India, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare under office memoranda No.45/55/97-P & PW(C) dated 11.9.1998 has formulated liberalized scheme of payment of ex gratia lump sum compensation to families of the employees of the Central Government who died in harness and in terms of the said memoranda, case of the petitioner should be considered for grant of compensation as her - 3 - husband died on 23.7.1992 not only in harness but also on duty. 4. I have gone through the contents of memoranda of the Government of India, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare dated 11.9.1998, wherefrom it appears that the same is applicable to the families of the Central Government civilian employees who died in harness and not to the members of the force. Even otherwise the memoranda having been issued on 11.9.1998 could not be applied to the case of the petitioner with retrospective effect as her husband died on 23.7.1992. I do not see any merit in the writ application, which is dismissed. Patna high court, Patna Dated 23rd Sept., 2010 NAFR/Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)