Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: While considering cross-appeals against the order passed by the Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was allowed and she was held entitled to extra ordinary pension under Category ‘C’, the Division Bench of Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Rohit Kapoor*, JJ., stated that considering the services that the appellant’s husband was carrying out, at the time of his unfortunate death, the same would have to be construed as services of that of ‘a member of the armed forces’ and not of a ‘workman’. Thus, the Court modified the said judgement to the extent that the benefit of arrears and interest would be computed from the period of three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition.
Background
In 1983, the appellant’s husband joined the General Reserve Engineering Force and was working on the post of Overseer. He was awarded the Chief Engineering (Project) Commendation Card while in service. In July 2000, her husband was posted at Arunachal Pradesh and while performing his official duty in an active area, was tasked as In-charge Works for formation cutting of Hayliang-Metangliang-Chaglohogam Road, one of the China Study Group roads, having national and strategic importance.
On the given day, the appellant’s husband was standing very close to the edge of the road formation towards the valley side, supervising the dozar operation at a location having treacherous and rocky mass with large height of cut. Suddenly, a big boulder from the hilltop started rolling down with huge debris towards the dozar and compressor. Realizing the danger, he immediately raised an alarm and instructed the dozar and compressor operators to move out to a safer place. Without caring for his life, he started assisting others and gave a helping hand in the attempt to move the compressor away from the site. In the attempt, he could not get out of the way of the shooting boulder in time and was swept away and fell into the 70-meter-deep valley, leading to his death.
The Government awarded him ‘Shaurya Chakra’, posthumously. The appellant was granted an amount of Rs.1,84,170 as compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (‘Workmen’s Compensation Act’) besides a lump sum amount of Rs.5,00,000 as ex-gratia. The appellant felt aggrieved by the fact that her husband had made the supreme sacrifice, yet she was only granted ordinary family pension, contrary to the Rules.
Thus, the appellant sent a representation for grant of pension under the Central Civil Services (‘CCS’) (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules, 1939 (‘Extra Ordinary Pension Rules’) in December 2005. The same was rejected in January 2006 on the ground that since her husband died due to hitting of boulder at site, while deployed on bona fide government duties, compensation amount under the Workmen’s Compensation Act stood paid and no liberalized pensionary award was admissible to next of kin of deceased as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The appellant further filed an application in December 2012 seeking Special Family Pension/Liberalized Family Pension, which was also rejected.
In pursuance of this, the appellant filed a writ petition seeking to quash both the orders.
Issues, Analysis and Decision
Whether the appellant’s husband was a workman as defined under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, or a member of the Armed Forces of the Union?
The Court referred to R. Viswan v. Union of India, (1983) 3 SCC 401, (‘R. Viswan case’) and stated that while there was no doubt that members of the General Reserve Engineering Force are an integral part of the Armed Forces, for the purpose of Article 33 of the Constitution would thus not fall within the definition of a workman, so as to be covered under the’’ Extra Ordinary Pension Rules.
The Court noted that certain exceptions were carved out through Statutory Rules and Orders 329 and 330 issued by the Central Government that for the purpose of discipline they were under dual control. The Court perused Section 2 (n) read with Schedule II of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and stated that it could not be said that the members of General Reserve Engineering Force were carrying out normal activities of laying down roads, bridges, etc. as regular ‘workmen’ of any ordinary employer or construction agency. The nature of activities carried out by them led to the inescapable conclusion that they are undoubtedly part of the Armed Forces of the Union for the purposes of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The Court stated that the death of the appellant’s husband happened when he was posted at the hostile Indo-China border, and he laid down his life for saving his colleagues and the essential equipment required, to complete the task. If members of General Reserve Engineering Force could be held to be under dual control for the purpose of ‘discipline’, then for the nature of services being provided at the time of their death or disability would be seen to ascertain whether they would fall within the definition of the ‘armed forces of the union’ at the relevant time or not.
Considering the services that the late husband of the appellant was carrying out, at the time of his unfortunate death, the Court stated that the same would have to be construed as services of that of ‘a member of the armed forces’ and not of a ‘workman’.
Whether the benefits of extraordinary pension/liberalized family pension would be admissible to the appellant in terms of the Extra Ordinary Pension Rules and if admissible then under which Category?
The Court perused Schedule II of the Extra Ordinary Pension Rules and noted that Government servants governed by the Workmen’s Compensation Act were eligible for awards under the said Rules if they fell under Category ‘D’ or ‘E’.
The Court agreed with the Single Judge’s observation that the incident could not be termed a ‘simple accident’ in common parlance, however, it held that the case fell within the definition of ‘accident’ under Rule 3(1)(ii) of the Extra Ordinary Pension Rules, which included a mishap caused by an act of devotion to duty in an emergency arising otherwise than by violence, out of and in the course of service.
The Court took into account and appreciated the supreme sacrifice made by the appellant’s late husband and held that the Extra Ordinary Pension Rules could not be interpreted in the manner as sought by the appellant, particularly in the absence of any challenge to the said Rules or a prayer seeking directions to the Union of India to grant equal benefits to civilian members of General Reserve Engineering Force as admissible to their Army counterparts.
The Court noted that in R. Viswan case (supra), it was observed that the Central Government might consider removing any disparity between the service conditions of Army personnel posted in General Reserve Engineering Force units and other men in General Reserve Engineering Force officers. However, it held that the said observations were advisory in nature and could not form the basis for issuing directions in the absence of a specific challenge.
The Court upheld that the appellant’s claim would fall under Category ‘C’ of Schedule II and further stated that the claim regarding payment of interest on the ex-gratia amount did not merit consideration, as no such prayer had been made in the writ petition.
If the appellant was found entitled for extraordinary pension, whether the same was to be granted from the date of death of appellant’s husband, or was to be restricted to thirty-eight months preceding the date of filing of the writ petition, or whether the same was to be granted from the date of filing of the writ petition?
The Court noted that the Single Judge held that the appellant was entitled to extraordinary pension from the date of filing of the writ petition, however, the appellant claimed that she was entitled to the amount along with interest from the date of death of her husband, or alternatively, at least for a period of 38 months preceding the filing of the writ petition.
The Court stated that it is well settled that grievances pertaining to pension are in the nature of a continuing wrong, and even in cases where there is delay in approaching the Court, the arrears are to be restricted to a period of three years preceding the date of filing of writ petition.
The Court, hence, stated that since the appellant herself restricted her claim to arrears for a period of three years prior to the filing of the writ petition, it would be appropriate to grant the benefit in terms of the said undertaking.
Thus, the Court allowed the appeal at hand in part and modified the said judgement to the extent that the benefit of arrears and interest would be computed from the period of three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition.
[Kuldeep Kaur v. Union of India, LPA No. 1147 of 2024 (O&M), decided on 29-1-2026]
*Judgement authored by Justice Rohit Kapoor
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Advocate and Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sunil Sharma, Advocate