Gauhati High Court Directs Ex-Gratia Payment for Constable's Death on COVID-19 Related Duty, Applies Notional Extension Principle

Itanagar: The Gauhati High Court has set aside a State Level Screening Committee's decision and directed the Arunachal Pradesh government to pay an ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs to the family of a police constable who died in an accident while returning from duty related to checking illegal entry during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Justice RobinPhukan , presiding over the Itanagar Permanent Bench, held that the constable's death, even though occurring while returning to his post after cross-checking information, was intrinsically linked to his official duty, including disaster management efforts during the pandemic. The court applied the principle of 'notional extension' of the place and time of employment, typically used under the Workmen's Compensation Act, to interpret the terms of the State's Ex-Gratia scheme.

Background of the Case

The petitioners were the wife and minor children of Late Amost Regon , a Constable in the 5th Indian Reserve Battalion. On May 12, 2020, Constable Regon was on round-the-clock duty at the Shantipur Checkgate in Lower Dibang Valley District , responsible for patrolling the porous Assam- Arunachal border in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. Upon receiving information about potential miscreants entering Arunachal Pradesh through Daran village from Assam, he went to verify the information on his motorcycle. While returning to the checkgate, he met with an accident by colliding with an iron barricade and succumbed to his injuries.

His wife applied for ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs under the Arunachal Pradesh Ex-Gratia Grant Policy, 2019, which provides compensation for personnel killed or injured while fighting criminals, performing law and order duties, or disaster management duties. A District Level Board initially recommended the claim, finding the deceased entitled to the payment. However, the State Level Screening Committee rejected the claim in June 2022, stating the case did not fall under the scheme's guidelines. The petitioners challenged this rejection before the High Court.

Arguments Presented

Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the State's stand was irrelevant and contrary to established principles. He contended that the District Level Board's recommendation was correct and the State Committee failed to provide valid reasons for the rejection, simply stating the case wasn't covered. He cited several Supreme Court and High Court decisions, including Rajanna v. Union of India , regarding the scope of duty and compensation.

Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, argued that while the deceased was on duty, he was not performing 'disaster management duty' at the exact moment of the accident. According to the State, his disaster management duty ended when he completed the cross-checking in Daran village, and the accident occurred while he was merely returning to the checkgate on normal duty. He cited Kanchan Dua v. Union of India and Smt. Punya Chutia v. State of Assam to support the State's position that the deceased's death did not fit the specific criteria of the notification.

Court's Analysis and Findings

The High Court carefully examined the facts, particularly the FIR lodged immediately after the incident, which stated that the constable was on "round the clock duty at Shantipur Check-gate in view of the pandemic of Covid-19" and "had gone to cross-check the information that some miscreants from Assam were trying to enter through the Daran Village into Arunachal Pradesh." The court noted that the State respondents had not disputed the facts presented in the FIR.

Justice Phukan found the State's argument – that the disaster management duty ended at the village and did not cover the return journey – "too feeble to impress this court".

Crucially, the court applied the principle of 'notional extension', drawing parallels with the interpretation of "arising out of and in the course of employment" under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Relying on Supreme Court judgments like Rajanna v. Union of India , Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja , and Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak , the court held that if there is a causal relationship between the accident and employment, and the accident arises from a risk incidental to employment, the claim should succeed. The court emphasized that the journey to and from the place of work, especially in an official capacity or as required by duty, can be considered a notional extension of the employment itself.

The judgment stated: "In the instant case, the causal relationship between the accident and the employment is admitted. The husband of the petitioner No.1 was on duty at the Shantipur Check-gate. He had gone to cross-check the information relating to entry of some miscreants into the State of Arunachal Pradesh in Daran Village, while Covid-19 pandemic was prevalent all over the country and inter-state movement of people was banned. It is also admitted that cross-checking of the information in Daran village was a duty relating to disaster management, i.e. to prevent spread of Covid-19 pandemic."

The court concluded that even if he was considered merely on "official duty" while returning, the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment, and the 'Disaster Management Duty' under the notification must be construed similarly to 'in the course of employment'.

Furthermore, the court found the State Level Screening Committee's rejection to be legally unsustainable because it failed to provide any reasons for denying the claim, citing the principle laid down in Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji that public orders must be judged by the reasons stated therein and cannot be supplemented by later explanations via affidavit.

The court distinguished the precedents cited by the State, finding Kanchan Dua unrelated to an accident on duty and Smt. Punya Chutia distinguishable on facts and noted that it did not discuss a question of law to be a strong precedent.

Decision and Implications

Finding "sufficient merit" in the petition, the High Court allowed it. The respondent authorities have been directed to grant the ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs to the petitioners within a period of one month from receiving a certified copy of the order.

This judgment clarifies that for the purpose of ex-gratia schemes covering death or injury on duty, particularly those related to disaster management, the scope of 'duty' can extend beyond the immediate action point to include necessary travel arising from or incidental to that duty, aligning with principles from compensation law. It also reinforces the legal requirement for administrative bodies to provide reasoned decisions when rejecting claims.

Case Details: * Case Name: Smt. Yapi Regon & Ors. vs. The Union of India & Ors. * Case Number: WP(C) No. 459(AP)/2023 * Court: Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Permanent Bench * Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice RobinPhukan * Date of Judgment: January 21, 2025