$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 11.03.2026 Judgment delivered on: 15.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 15.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 16376/2023 SMT RASHMI SHARMA .....Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case For the Petitioner : Mr. Gajendra Giri and Mr. Aditya Giri, Advs.

For the Respondent : Mr. Niraj Kumar, SCGC with Mr.

Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

JUDGMENT

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayers:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing/ setting aside thereby the communication of the respondents vide No. 10936/ DGBR/ Retire/ 38/ IRLA dated 5.6.2023 and a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents for granting the Ex- Gratia Compensation to the Petitioner as per the provisions of the DOP& T OM. NO. 45/55/97 P& PW ( C ) dated 11.9.1998 as amended on 4.8.2016 as OM NO. F.NO. 38/37/ /2016-P&PW (A) (1)

dated 4.8.2016 and to consider her for compassionate appointment.

Any other or further order/directions may also be passed by this Hon'ble Court in favor of the Petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.”

2. The relevant facts for adjudicating the present writ are as under:

2.1. The Petitioner’s husband, late Sh. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, served with the Esteemed Border Roads Organisation [‘EBRO’] as JE (Civil) from 30.09.2002 till his death on 20.12.2021, having rendered about 19 years 2 months 10 days of service. The Petitioner asserts that from 2002 till June 2021 her husband [‘deceased’] was continuously deployed in high- altitude/hostile and hard areas, and the nature of duties involved exposure to harsh climatic conditions and occupational hazards.

2.2. It is the case of the Petitioner that the deceased was diagnosed with cancer in the year 2020 and underwent treatment at Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital, Delhi, whereafter he resumed his official duties. It is further stated that on 20.12.2021, while he was on duty, he developed chest pain and was immediately taken to Yashoda Hospital and Research Centre, Ghaziabad [‘Hospital’], where he expired. Relying upon the death summary, the Petitioner asserts that the immediate cause of death was cardio- pulmonary/cardiac arrest and, therefore, the demise of her husband occurred while in harness on a working day.

2.3. The Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 06.04.2022 and thereafter submitted a representation dated 02.05.2023 seeking ex-gratia compensation as per the provision of DOP& T OM. NO. 45/55/97 P& PW (C) dated 11.9.1998 [‘O.M. dated 11.09.1998’] as amended on 4.8.2016 as OM NO.

F.NO. 38/37/ /2016-P&PW (A) (1) dated 4.8.2016 [‘O.M. dated 04.08.2016’].

2.4. The Respondents rejected the Petitioner’s claim of ex-gratia compensation vide impugned letter dated 05.06.2023, on the ground that the deceased had died of cancer, which, according to them, constituted a natural cause of death. The Respondents have further taken the position that the death had not occurred while the deceased was ‘on duty’.

3. The Petitioner disputes the said reasoning for denying compensation and asserts that the deceased was not on leave and further contends that the Respondents have incorrectly attributed the death to cancer as a natural cause, whereas, according to the medical record relied upon by her, the immediate cause of death was cardiac arrest.

3.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon, the decisions in Sangita Tomar v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 6176/2020, decided 01.09.2022, Ram Devi v. DG, BSF, W.P.(C) 3527/2013, decided 27.05.2015, and Pushpa Devi v. Union of India, CWP No. 6894/2015, decided on 18.04.2017 in support of the submission that ex-gratia