Munni Kanwar v. Union of India and Ors

5. The petitioner also issued a legal notice to the respondent in the above regard on 7 November 2023, which was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General, SHQ by the following communication dated 4 January 2024: “E-mail.shqbandipur@bsf.nic.in Dated, the 4 Jan 2024 To Mr. Ankur Chibber, Advocate, (By Regt Post) B/95, Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi-110029 Sub: - LEGAL NOTICE Kindly refer legal notice dated 07 Nov 2023 served by you on behalf of your client Smt Munni Kanwar W/O Late Shri Ajit Singh Tanwar (IRLA No. 40802619), R/O VPO Gidania, Chirawa, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan- 333027.

2. The legal notice served by you on behalf of your client i.e., Smt. Munni Kanwar, W/O Late Ajit Singh Tanwar in the light of grant of ex-gratia and Extra Ordinary Pension as per Rule 3-A of the CCS (EOP) Rules as allegedly Shri Ajit Singh Tanwar did not have any subsisting heart condition prior to his untimely demise.

3. In this connection, it is to inform that case for sanction of ex-gratia & EOP has been taken up with FHQ (Adm Dte: EOP Sec) New Delhi but same has been received back to unit as the case is not covered under CCS (EOP) Rules, 1939 due to following reasons: - (i) “Post mortem of the deceased was carried out and as the report, the deceased died due to "effects of diseased condition of heart as noted above, a natural cause". As per statement of Dr. Mohd. Mujafar Hussain, faculty of FMT, Malda Medical collage who conducted the post-mortem in SCOI, the cause of death of the deceased is "Sudden coronary heart block with congestive heart failure and is a natural death”.

(ii) As per Schedule 1-A, Rule 3 (4) of CCS (EOP)

Rule 1939 enumerated at Chapter 2 of Medical Manual, Vol IX, Sudden coronary heart block with congestive heart failure is not found included in the list of disease specified and not covered under Schedule-1-A, Rule 3 (4) of CCS (EOP) Rule

1939.

4. You are requested to apprise your client accordingly, Dy Inspector General SHQ BSF Bandipur”

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejections, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition, praying that the afore-noted communications dated 27 May 2023 and 4 January 2024 be quashed and set aside and that the respondents be directed to disburse, to the petitioner, ex gratia in terms of the DOPPW OM dated 4 August 2016 and EOP in terms of Rule 3-A of the CCS (EOP) Rules, along with interest.

7. Pleadings in the writ petition have been completed.

8. We have heard Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Vijendra Singh Mahndiyan, learned CGSC for the respondents, at length.

9. It is not necessary for us to advert to the rival contentions, as the issue in question is purely legal.

10. After hearing learned Counsel and applying ourselves to the existing law, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed on both of her claims.

11. The issue is squarely covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sunita Devi v UOI[6].

12. In that case, too, Naresh Kumar, the husband of the petitioner, Sunita Devi, suffered heart attack while participating in the Field Physical Efficiency Test which was part of his official duties and subsequently expired. Sunita, as his widow, was denied EOP and ex gratia and, therefore, approached this Court.

13. We may reproduce, for the sake of convenience, paras 5 to 10, 12 to 14, 19 and 20 of the decision in Sunita Devi, thus:

, provided that it is certified that it is due to wound, injury or disease which -

(i) is attributable to Government service, or

(ii) existed before or arose during Government service and has been and remains aggravated thereby. (b) Death shall be accepted as due to Government service 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2836 provided it is certified that it was due to or hastened by -

(i) a wound, injury or disease which was attributable to Government service, or

(ii) the aggravation by Government service of a wound, injury or disease which existed before or arose during Government service. (2) There shall be a causal connection between - (a) disablement and Government service; and (b) death and Government service, for attributability or aggravation to be conceded. Guidelines in this regard are given in the Appendix, which shall be treated as part and parcel of these Rules.

10. Death due to Government service- When death of Government servant is conceded as due to Government service in terms of Rule 3-A, his widow and children shall be awarded pensionary benefits in accordance with Schedule II hereto annexed. Schedule II For determining the compensation payable for death or disability under different circumstances, the cases are categorized in five distinct categories as under: ***** Category B- Death or disability due to causes which are accepted as attributable to or aggravated by Government service. Diseases contracted because of continued exposure to a hostile work environment, subjected to extreme weather conditions or occupational hazards resulting in death or disability would be examples.

6. Seen in conjunction, Rule 10 entitles the widow and children of a government servant, whose death is conceded as due to government service in terms of Rule 3A, to pensionary benefits in accordance with Schedule II. Schedule II determines the compensation payable for death or disability under various circumstances and sub-divides all cases into five categories. Category B covers death or disability due to causes which are accepted as attributable to or aggravated by government service. This includes diseases contracted due to occupational hazards resulting in death or disability. The Schedule sets out the scales at which family pension would be payable in cases covered by each of the aforesaid categories including Category B.

7. The expression “disease” is defined in Rule 3(4) as meaning a disease as mentioned in Schedule I-A to the CCS (EOP) Rules.

8. Diseases affected by stress and strain are enumerated under Head B in Schedule I-A, thus: “(B) Diseases affected by stress and strain:

(i) Psychosis and Psychoneurosis;

(ii) Hyperpiesia;

(iii) Hypertension (Blood Pressure);

(iv) Pulmonary Tuberculosis;

(v) Pulmonary Tuberculosis with pleural effusion;

(vi) Tuberculosis - Non-pulmonary:

(vii) Mitral Stenosis;

(viii) Pericarditis and adherent pericardium;

(ix) Endo-carditis;

(x) Sub-acute bacterialendo-carditis, including infective endocarditis;

(xi) Nyocarditis - acute or chronic;

(xii) Valvular disease;”

9. Though, strictly speaking, a heart attack is not included as one of the diseases affected by stress and strain, we are of the opinion that a reasonable and meaningful interpretation has to be accorded to the Schedule. When the Schedule includes hypertension and valvular disease in the list of diseases covered under Head B, as diseases affected by stress and strain, it is irrational and illogical to hold that if a person suffers a heart attack, it would not be covered under the Schedule. This would also render the Schedule prima facie arbitrary, and it is a well settled principle of interpretation that any interpretation which renders a statutory provision to be arbitrary or unconstitutional must be avoided.

10. We also note that, probably apparently aware of this lacuna, the CCS (EOP) Rules have been renotified on 30 January 2023 and that the 2023 CCS (EOP) Rules includes, after serial no.

(xii) under the Head of “diseases affected by stress and strain”, “heart attack/cardio related diseases”. *****

12. Given all these facts, we are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be denied extraordinary pension following the death of her husband which took place owing to a heart attack suffered during the course of undergoing FPET, which was part of his duties as a Constable in the 151st Battalion of the BSF. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner would be entitled to extraordinary pension as claimed in accordance with Schedule II to the CCS (EOP) Rules.

13. Insofar as the entitlement of the petitioner to ex gratia is concerned, the petitioner predicates her claim on an Office Memorandum dated 11 September 1998 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare, para 5 of which reads thus:

14. The rates of ex gratia, available under the aforesaid OM were revised by para 11 of the DOPW OM dated 2 September 2008, thus: “11. In terms of Department of Pension & PW O.M. No.45/55/97-P&PW(C) dated 11.9.1998, an ex gratia lump sum compensation is available to the families of Central Government Civilian employees, who die in the performance of their bona fide official duties under various circumstances. The amount of this ex-gratia lump sum compensation shall be revised as under: (a) Death occurring due to accidents in the course of performance of duties ₹ 10.00 lakh (b) Death occurring in the course of performance of duties attributable to acts of violence by terrorists, antisocial elements, etc. ₹ 10.00 lakh

(c) Death occurring (a) enemy action in international war or border skirmishes: and (b) action against militants, terrorists, extremists, etc. ₹ 15.00 lakh

(d) Death occurring while on duty in the specified high altitude, inaccessible border posts, etc on account of Natural disasters, extreme weather conditions. ₹ 15.00 lakh The Department of Pension & PW O.M. No.45/55/97- P&PW(C) dated 11.9.1998 shall stand modified to this extent.” *****

19. Mr. Rahul Sharma has, with commendable fairness, also submitted that a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Sangita Tomar v UOI[7], which was also a case of heart attack. The ratio decidendi of the said decision is to be found in the following paragraphs:

2022 SCC OnLine Del 2671 occurrence of death and government service”.

18. Petitioner has placed reliance upon decision of this Court in Ram Devi, wherein consequent upon death of Head Constable in BSF because of “cardio respiratory arrest due to multi-organ diseases and in particular liver cirrhosis”; his wife was denied ex gratia compensation by the competent authority and this Court had observed as under:

19. Reliance is also placed by petitioner upon a decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Pushpa Devi v Union of India[8], wherein the learned Single Judge in a case where a driver employed under Border Roads Organisation had died of heart attack, granted ex gratia compensation to his widow while relying upon decision of Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Kamlesh Devi v State of Punjab[9], wherein it was held that the word “accident” would also include person dying of “heart attack” which is an unexpected event which happens without design.

20. It is not disputed that Ram Kumar Singh EXGO- 004185-K AE 9 CIVIL was serving a hard posting at 476 RMPL in Shergaon, Arunachal Pradesh when he died of heart attack on 21-1-2018. It is also not disputed that out of his last three postings, two were in high altitude areas and the last was a hard posting. There is no denial from the respondents that in the family of the petitioner, there is no history of death by heart attack. Moreover, at the time of filing of the present petition, father of the petitioner, aged 83 years, was said to be living a healthy life. The cause of death of petitioner's husband has been opined as “acute myocardial infarction”. In medical terms, the reasons for most myocardial infarctions are coronary

2001 SCC OnLine P&H 1507 artery disease due to prolonged deprivation of oxygen supply and when one or more areas of heart muscles do not get enough oxygen, it results into heart attack. It is not wrong to presume here that due to various postings in high altitude areas, Ram Kumar Singh might have been deprived of oxygen necessary for a healthy heart and sustained medical problems, which could not be known at initial stage. It is admitted by respondent that on 20-1-2018, deceased Ram Kumar Singh had gone to visit the road sector OKSRT road and Shergaon- Morshing-Phudung Road and returned to his location at 476 RMPL in Shergaon at 1910 hours and on return he complained of chest pain and at about 1945 hours, he was rushed to the Military Hospital Tenga Valley, which is indisputably located at a distance of 65 km and so, the necessary medical assistance which supposedly was required to be provided to him instantly, however, could only be given after approximately three hours thereof.

21. Accordingly, we find no hesitation to hold that death of petitioner's husband happened during the official course of his duties and, therefore, petitioner being the NoK of deceased Ram Kumar Singh is entitled to grant of ex gratia compensation. Consequently, order dated 19-10-2019 passed by the respondent relying upon DoP OM No. 45/55/97- P&PW(C) dated 11-9-1998; amended vide OM No. 38-37- 2016-P&PW(A)(i) dated 4-8-2016, for rejection of grant of ex gratia pension to petitioner, is misplaced, as the case of deceased falls under the category of “death due to accident in course of performance of duties”. Hence, petitioner is entitled to grant of ex gratia lump sum compensation of Rs 25,00,000 in terms of Clause 12.[1] of OM No. 38-37-2016-P&PW(A)(i) dated 4-8-2016.”

20. Following the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, we have no doubt in our mind that the petitioner would also be entitled to ex gratia compensation as per the rates contained in the DOPT OM dated 2 September 2008, consequent on the death of her husband, Naresh Kumar, Constable.”

14. The observations and findings in the afore-extracted passages from the decision in Sunita Devi apply mutatis mutandis to the present case.

15. The only ground on which the petitioner’s entitlement to EOP and ex gratia is sought to be contested is that the post mortem report of Ajit Singh Tanwar certified that he had died due to the effect of the diseased condition of his heart, which was a natural cause. The doctor, who conducted the post mortem, opined that the death of Ajit Singh Tanwar was owing to sudden coronary heart block with congestive heart failure. The respondents seek to deny EOP to the petitioner on the ground that sudden congestive coronary heart block with congestive heart failure is not included in the list of deceases enlisted in Schedule 1-A read with Rule 3(4) of the CCS (EOP) Rules.

16. In this context and keeping in line with our decision in Sunita Devi, we agree with Mr. Chhibber’s contention that coronary heart block and congestive heart failure were mere manifestations of the underlying heart condition of the petitioner which, even as per the post mortem report, was a deceased heart. The respondents have apparently conflated the immediate predisposing symptoms which led to the death of Ajit Singh Tanwar with the underlying cause of death. Attributability to military service, for any purpose, including entitlement to EOP or ex gratia, has to be assessed with respect to the cause of death, and not with respect to the immediate predisposing symptoms.

17. The cause of Ajit Singh Tanwar’s death was, unquestionably, his underlying heart disease, which manifested in the form of coronary heart block with congestive heart failure.

18. Viewed thus, the issue is squarely covered by our decision in Sunita Devi in which, in identical circumstances, we held the petitioner Sunita Devi to be entitled to EOP and ex gratia.

19. We may also note, in this context that, sub-heading B of Heading I (List and Classification of Diseases which can be contracted by service) in Schedule 1-A to the CCS (EOP) Rules which enlists the various diseases which can be regarded as contracted due to service and which, if responsible for the death of the officer concerned, would entitle his widow to EOP enlists, under heading B (Diseases affected by stretch and strain), the following: “(viii) Pericarditis and adherent pericardium.

(ix) Endo-carditis.

(x) Sub-acute bacterialendo-carditis, including infective endocarditis.

(xi) Nyocarditis – acute or chronic.

(xii) Valvular disease.”

20. Thus, various underlying heart conditions have been recognized as entitling the widow of personnel of the Armed Forces, who may unfortunately expire owing to such underlying heart conditions and their manifestations, to EOP.

21. Even viewed thus, we are of the opinion that, as the coronary heart block and congestive heart failure, which were the immediate predisposing manifestations prior to the death of Ajit Singh Tanwar were admittedly attributable to his underlying deceased heart, it would be unjust, unfair and against the very spirit of the CCS (EOP) Rules to deny extraordinary pension to the petitioner.

22. For the same reason, and following our judgment in Sunita Devi, we hold that the petitioner would also be entitled to ex gratia of ₹ 25 lakhs in terms of DOPPW OM dated 4 August 2016.

23. We do not deem it necessary to advert to the petitioner’s entitlement to ex gratia independently on merits, as our findings in Sunita Devi sufficiently cover the field in this regard.

24. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.

25. The respondents are directed to disburse, to the petitioner, the amounts due to her towards EOP and ex gratia compensation within a period of 8 weeks.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J. AUGUST 14, 2025