The judgment established that while statutory rules govern certain entitlements, additional compensation may be warranted for losses beyond what is covered by the rules.

1. This writ appeal by the Union of India is against the judgment and order dated 10.5.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge directing grant of compensation to the writ petitioner (respondent herein) to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000.00 (Rupees three lakh) for injuries sustained by the petitioner in an accident arising in the course of duties/employment.

2. The facts, in brief, may briefly be noticed at the outset:

The petitioner was working as a Naik in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as the CRPF) and was, at the relevant time, posted at Kohima. On 13.11.1992, while the petitioner was fixing a signal pole in the course of his duties, he came into contact with a live electric wire. The petitioner suffered burn injuries on his neck, both the hands and in the legs. The petitioner was hospitalized in the Naga Hospital at Kohima where he remained as an indoor patient for 2(two) weeks. Thereafter, the petitioner was shifted to the Base Hospital at Guwahati and finally to the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital wherein he was admitted on 7.12.1992. As, in the meantime, gangrene had set in, both the arms of the petitioner had to be amputated. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was referred to the Medical Board whose opinion was that the petitioner was permanently incapacitated from performing his duties. Consequently, he was invalidated from service with effect from 14.9.1993. At that time the petitioner was around 40 years in age. He was invalidated out of service by grant of pension amounting to Rs. 775.00 (Rupees seven hundred seventy-five) per month which included invalid pension of Rs. 400.00 (Rupees four hundred) under the provisions of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules ('the CCS (Pension) Rules') and Disability Pension of Rs. 375.00 (Rupees three hundred seventy-five) per month calculated under the provisions of the Central Civil Service (Extraordinary) Pension Rules [hereinafter referred to as the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules].

3. Aggrieved and contending that the petitioner is entitled to a further lump sum compensation, the petitioner approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh by filing a Civil Writ Petition. The aforesaid Civil Writ Petition was withdrawn on 10.4.2003 with liberty to approach this court. Thereafter, the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen was filed before this court.

4. In the writ petition filed, the petitioner had contended that the injuries sustained by him leading to amputations of both the arms were caused in the course of performance of duties. Grant of a meagre amount of disability pension in a situation where the petitioner was permanently incapacitated with a large family to support was not at all justified. He, therefore, claimed to be entitled to compensation on a lump sum basis. In the writ petition filed, the different heads under which compensation was claimed with the precise damages suffered were, however, not pleaded by the petitioner.

5. The claims made in the writ petition were resisted by the respondents in the writ petition (appellants herein) by contending that all retirement benefits due, like gratuity, leave encashment, G.I.S., etc., were paid to the petitioner. According to the respondents, the pension of the petitioner including disability pension totalling Rs. 775.00 (Rupees seventy hundred seventy-five) per month was enhanced to Rs. 2,360.00 (Rupees two thousand three hundred sixty) following the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission. According to the respondents (appellants herein), the petitioner could have availed of the disability pension on a monthly basis or in a lump sum and further that as the statutory rules in force for grant of normal pension as well as disability pension do not provide for payment of any compensation, the petitioner is not entitled to the compensation sought for.

6. The learned Single Judge, on due consideration of the respective cases advanced by the contesting parties, took t