Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. VERMA AND Mrs. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.
Rajanna, Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 4584 of 1995 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 3657 of 1994)
Decided on 19-4-1995.
Constitution Of India,1950 - Ex-Gratia Payment - Course of his employment - Appellant was security assistant in Special Protection Group attached to Cabinet Secretariat from was amongst security personnel attached to Prime Minister’s Office appellant was required to be on such duty at South Block New Delhi from - According to official arrangement some members Personnel including appellant were picked up by an official vehicle from staff quarters and vehicle was going to South Block when it was involved in road accident at about in which appellant sustained certain injuries resulting in his permanent partial disablement on account of shortening of one leg - As result of this disability appellant became unsuitable for performance security duty of and was shifted to less important posting which also reduced his special allowance – Held, Course of employment normally begins when employee reaches his place of work - To extend it to journey to and from work it must be shown that in travelling by particular method and route and at particular time employee was fulfilling an express or implied term of his contract of service - One way of doing this is to establish that home is employees base from which it is his duty to work and that he was travelling by direct route from his home to place where he was required to work but that is only one way of showing this real question at issue is whether on particular journey he was travelling in performance of door whether journey was incidental to performance of that duty and not merely preparatory to performance it - If place where accident occurs is private road or on employers property accident is in course of employment because he is then at scene accident by reason only of his employment and he has reached sphere of his employment - Test is whether employee was exposed to particular risk by reason - An accident happening while an employed earner is with express or implied permission of his employer travelling as passenger to or from his place of work in any vehicle which is being operated by or on behalf of his employer or which is provided by some other person in pursuance of arrangements made with his employer must be deemed to arise out of and in course of his employment even though employed earner is not obliged to travel by that vehicle if it would have been deemed so to have arisen if he had been under an obligation to travel by it provided that vehicle is not operated in ordinary course of public transport service - There can be no doubt that there was causal relationship between accident in which appellant sustained injuries and his employment for actual security duty; and it was an incident of his employment to travel from staff quarters to South Block in vehicle according to official arrangement - In our opinion meaning of expression actual VIP security duty in above circular must be same as that of words in course employment in Workmen’s Compensation Act therefore test for determining liability for payment circular should also be same - In our view tribunal was in error in making an unduly strict and narrow construction of expression used in circular - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
J. S. VERMA, J. :—Leave granted.
2. The only question for decision is: Whether the appellant is entitled to the ex-gratia payment of Rs. 50,000/- in accordance with the circular dated 13-6-1986 of the Cabinet Secretariat of the Central Government providing for grant of ex-gratia payment to the Special Protection Group (SPG) Personnel? The claim is on account of the permanent partial disablement suffered by the appellant as a result of certain injuries sustained by him in a motor accident on 20-6-1986 while travelling in a SPG vehicle. The material part of the circular providing for ex-gratia payment to be made to the SPG personnel who suffer permanent partial disablement as a result of injuries received while performing actual VIP security duty is as under :
"(iii) Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the SPG personnel who suffer permanent partial disablement as a result of injuries received while performing actual VIP security duty."
3. The relevant facts are admitted. The appellant was a security assistant in the Special Protection Group attached to the Cabinet Secretariat from 17-9-1985 and was amongst the security personnel attached to the Prime Ministers Office. On 20-6-1986 the appellant was required to be on such duty at the South Block, New Delhi from 9.00 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. According to the official arrangement some members of the SPG Personnel including the appellant were picked up by an official SPG vehicle from the staff quarters and the vehicle was going to the South Block when it was involved in a road accident at about 8.20 a.m. in which the appellant sustained certain injuries resulting in his permanent partial disablement on account of shortening of one leg. As a result of this disability the appellant became unsuitable for performance of the security duty of VVIPs and was shifted to a less important posting which also reduced his special allowance from 50% to 25%.
4. The appellant claimed the ex-gratia payment of Rs.50,000/- in accordance with the above circular dated 13-6-1986 on the ground that his permanent partial disablement was the result of injuries sustained by him while on duty. The appellants claim was rejected by letter dated 23-7-1992 which reads as under :-
"No. 8/SPG-PF/85 (136)
Special Protection Group
(Cabinet Secretariat)
New Delhi
No. 1, Safdurjung Lane,
New Delhi 110001.
Dated 23 July 1992.
M E M O R A N D U M
With reference to his representation for grant of ex-gratia payment, Shri Rajanna, SA is hereby informed that his case was considered by the Government carefully but could not be acceded to as the same was not covered for the grant of ex-gratia payment under the rules and has since been dropped.
Sd/-
Assistant Director (Admn.)
To
Shri Rajana, SA through AD (Tech), SPG"
5. The appellant then filed O.A.No.2284 of 1992 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi for recovery of his claim of ex-gratia payment of Rs. 50,000/- The claim was contested on the ground that the injuries resulting in the permanent partial disablement of the appellant were not sustained by him while performing "actual VIP security duty" as required by the circular but in the motor accident which occurred before the appellant had joined actual duty at 9.00 a.m. The Tribunal has rejected the appellants claim accepting the defence. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
6. The real question for decision is the meaning of the expression "actual VIP security duty" in the above circular in the context of the provision for "grant of ex-gratia payment to SPG personnel." The reasoning of the tribunal which is supported by the learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the respondent is that "actual VIP security duty" means the actual period when the person is providing security to the VIP on commencement of the duty hours and it does not include the journey to and from the duty post. Is this the correct meaning of the expression in the present context?
7. It is well known that the Special Protect
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
