The main legal point established is that if an ailment like heart disease is suffered by a government employee while on duty and not traced to a prior condition, it can be attributed to government service, entitling the petitioner to the extraordinary pension.

Mahesh Grover, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order Annexure P-11, vide which the petitioner has been denied the extra-ordinary family pension.

2. The facts are not in dispute. The husband of the petitioner, Subhash Chandra, was serving in 166 Battalion of the CRPF and was deployed on active duty in the operational and disturbed area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. On 12.5.2007, while on patrol duty, he died due to heart attack. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was under continuous stress and prior to his death, he was on the roster for night duty from 8.5.2007 to 9.5.2007 and from 11.5.2007 to 12.7.2007.

3. The respondents released the ordinary pension to the petitioner and denied the extraordinary pension on the ground that the death of the husband of the petitioner due to heart attack could not be attributed to his duties and the same could be construed to be on account of natural cause alone. To enhance their case, the respondents relied upon the Government of Indias orders wherein it has been laid down that for determining the compensation payable for death or disability under different circumstances, the case was to be categorized in five distinct categories.. For the purpose of the present controversy, the relevant category is category A, which reads thus:-

"Death or disability due to natural causes not attributable to Government Service. Examples would be chronic ailments like heart and renal diseases, prolonged illness, accidents while not on duty, etc."

4. Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has referred to the rules called the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules , with specific reference to Rule 3-A1(b) and 3-Al(b)(ii) which are extracted here under:-

"(b) Death shall be accepted as due to Government Service provided it is certified that it was due to or hastened by,

(i) xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx

(ii) the aggravation by Government service of a wound, injury or disease which existed before or arose during Government service."

5. It is, thus, the case of the counsel for the petitioner that the death of the husband of the petitioner was directly attributable to government service and according to the guidelines, which have been issued and contained in the Appendix to the rules, injuries sustained when the man is on duty will be deemed to have been received as result of incidences of government service, but in case of injuries suffered due to serious negligence or misconduct, the question of reducing the disability pension could be considered.

6. To controvert the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Ranjana Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India, contends that by no stretch of imagination can the death of the husband of the petitioner be attributed to government service and according to the Government of India orders, which are contained in the rules itself, and as per Category A, the death or disability due to natural cause is not attributable to government service, have been classified and which mean to be chronic ailments like heart and renal diseases, prolonged illness, accident while not on duty. It is, thus, sought to be projected before this Court with reference to the aforesaid provision of the Government orders and Category A that the terms "natural cause not attributable to government service" are specifically provided and cover the problem of heart as well and that the term "while not on duty" in the said classification of Category A would merely pertain to accidents and not pertain to disease of heart.

7. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and have perused the impugned order as also the material on record

8. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner was on duty at the time when he suffered heart attack and died. It is also not disputed tha