Death of a government servant due to disease contracted in a malaria-prone area while on duty is attributable to service, entitling the widow to extraordinary pension and ex-gratia compensation.

JUDGMENT

SHALINDER KAUR, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner, who is the widow of the late Head Constable (HC) Surender Singh, who was serving in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and had succumbed to ‘Cerebral Malaria’ and ‘Acute Viral Hepatitis with Fulminant Hepatic Failure’ on 22.11.2006, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the rejection of her claim for extraordinary pension and ex-gratia lump sum compensation under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 [CCS (EOP) Rules] by the respondents.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are that in the year 1987, the petitioner’s late husband was enrolled in the CRPF in the rank of Constable (GD). Soon after, in 1990, he was promoted to the rank of HC (RO) and was posted at various stations while being in the said rank.

3. In the year 2004, late HC Surender Singh was posted to the 72 Battalion, Bokaro, Jharkhand, where he contracted Malaria. It is the claim of the petitioner that Bokaro was declared a high-risk Malaria infested area at the time of her late husband’s posting there. On 14.11.2006, he was granted a two-month leave to visit his family in Delhi and therefore, despite suffering from high fever, her late husband HC Surender Singh travelled from Jharkhand to Delhi. Upon his arrival at Delhi on 16.11.2006, he was, due to high fever, rushed to the Command Hospital at Group Centre (GC), Delhi, where he remained admitted till 22.11.2006. However, as his condition continued to worsen despite being administered treatment at the Command Hospital, he was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, where he succumbed to his illness on 22.11.2006. The cause of his death was opined to be due to ‘Cerebral Malaria’ and ‘Acute Viral Hepatitis with Fulminant Hepatic Failure’.

4. After the demise of her husband, the petitioner informed the respondents, including the office of the Commandant-1 Signal Battalion regarding his death. The Station House Officer (SHO), Najafgarh was also informed regarding the same. A Court of Inquiry (COI) was also convened to inquire into the cause of death of her husband, which on 17.02.2006 opined that the death of the petitioner’s husband was due to ‘Cerebral Malaria’ and ‘Acute Viral Hepatitis C’, for which nobody was responsible. This report of the COI was not accepted as it was found that all relevant factors had not been considered by the COI. Consequently, a fresh COI was ordered on 19.04.2006, which gave its report on 06.06.2006, opining that he was infected with ‘Cerebral Malaria’ and ‘Acute Viral Hepatitis C’ due to his movement in malaria prone areas for performing ops duties. It was further opined that all financial benefits, including extraordinary family pension may be granted to the petitioner.

5. On 08.02.2007, the petitioner was sanctioned family pension and also paid death gratuity. Further, on 20.05.2011, the respondents appointed the petitioner in the CRPF as HC (Ministerial) on compassionate grounds but did not grant extraordinary pension and other benefits claimed by her. The petitioner is currently working as an Assistant Sub Inspector (M) in the CRPF and is posted at the GC CRPF, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

6. It is the petitioner’s case that she is entitled to extraordinary pension as per Rule 3-A(1) and (2) of the CCS (EOP) and also to the grant of ex- gratia lump sum compensation under the liberalized scheme of payment in accordance with the OM dated 11.09.1998, as the death of her late husband had occurred while he was in service and the same was attributable to his service in Bokaro. However, on 23.11.2007, she was informed that the death of her husband could not be treated as being attributable to service, as Bokaro was not a Malaria prone area and even otherwise, the period during which he had contracted the Malaria was when he was on leave.

7. Aggrieved by this stand taken by the respondents, the petitioner vide her letter dated 15.0