Duty doesn’t end with office hours: Court orders CRPF to pay ex gratia to wife of constable who died after shift

“The plea of the respondents (Centre and others) that he was not on active duty at the time when he suffered the medical condition is a vain attempt to deny payment of an ex gratia award. The duty of a person serving the CRPF cannot be restricted to his office hours. As already observed by the other High Courts and the Apex Court, the expression ‘on duty’ is required to be given a liberal interpretation,” the court said on May 22.

Justice Rajesh Mazumdar Gauhati High Court directed the CRPF to release the ex gratia within three months.

Compensation amount

While the high court did not specify the exact amount payable, it directed the CRPF authorities to process and release the ex gratia compensation within three months.

The judgment repeatedly referred to central government policies and earlier Delhi High Court rulings where families of force personnel were granted Rs 25 lakh ex gratia compensation in similar “death during performance of duty” cases.

‘Peace location’ not relevant

• The fact that the husband of the petitioner was serving in the canteen at a peace location would be of no relevance in the present case, more so when it is an admitted case that the petitioner had served in the Rapid Action Force immediately before his deployment to Silchar.
• The respondents, by the order dated May 24, 2017, by which the husband of the petitioner had been discharged from service, had, in no uncertain terms, declared that the disability of the incumbent arose out of government duty.
• The petitioner’s husband was found to be entitled to a disability pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules.
• It is not the case of the respondents that there is any medical finding by a competent medical board to suggest that the disease which the husband of the petitioner had suffered could not have been detected at the time of his entry into service.
• In the absence of any such assertion and in the absence of any reason recorded by a competent medical board, the disability must be presumed to have arisen, to be attributable, and to have been aggravated due to service conditions.
• The Schedule to the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules classifies hypertension as a disease that can be contracted by service.
• It is, therefore, further reinforced that the disability suffered by the husband of the petitioner arose from a disease that was affected by the conditions of service.

Collapsed after duty

Gautam Nath had joined the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in 1999 and was later posted to the Group Centre in Silchar after serving with the Rapid Action Force. He had been assigned duty as a salesman at the CRPF canteen.

Since government quarters were unavailable, he had official permission to stay outside the campus with his family.

On August 23, 2015, Nath complained of chest pain while performing his duties at the canteen. Later that evening, while returning home after closing the canteen, he suffered severe discomfort and had to be hospitalised.

He underwent treatment at multiple hospitals, including the Guwahati Neurology Research Centre and CRPF hospitals, before doctors diagnosed him with right-side hemiplegia caused by intracerebral haemorrhage. From then onwards, he remained bedridden.

A departmental rehabilitation board later assessed him with 87 per cent disability and recommended disability pension. He was medically invalidated from service in May 2017. Importantly, the discharge order issued by the CRPF itself stated that his disability had “arisen out of official duty”.

However, Nath died on September 25, 2017, just months after being boarded out of service.

Surviving on meagre family pension: Widow

Following Nath’s death, his wife Pinky Nath repeatedly approached the CRPF authorities seeking disability-linked ex gratia compensation, saying she was surviving only on a “meagre” family pension despite her husband suffering permanent disability while serving the force.

But in February 2019, CRPF authorities rejected her request, claiming Nath was not on “active duty” when the haemorrhage struck because he had already left the campus and was outside the workplace.

Authorities also argued he was posted in a “peace area” and therefore there was no evidence of operational stress linked to the illness. The force further claimed there was no causal connection between his service and the disease that ultimately led to his death.

Court rejects CRPF’s stand

• The high court disagreed with the CRPF’s interpretation.
• Justice Mazumdar noted that Nath had neither taken unauthorised leave nor engaged in any personal activity disconnected from service.
• The court said that he suffered the stroke immediately after performing official duties and while returning home with valid permission to live off campus.
• The high court relied on several Supreme Court and high court judgments which held that armed forces and paramilitary personnel continue to remain “on duty” even while travelling, returning from leave, or staying in barracks.
• One of the key precedents cited was the Supreme Court’s ruling in Madan Singh Shekhawat vs Union of India, involving an Army horse rider who met with an accident while travelling on authorised leave.
• The Supreme Court had ruled that officially authorised movement connected with service would still qualify for disability benefits.
• The Gauhati High Court said the CRPF’s attempt to deny compensation merely because the constable was outside the office premises was legally unsustainable.

‘Service rules must benefit personnel’

The court also referred to earlier rulings that beneficial service provisions relating to disability pension and ex gratia compensation must be interpreted liberally in favour of armed forces personnel.

It further observed that hypertension is specifically recognised under the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules as a disease that can be linked to service conditions.

The high court noted that CRPF authorities themselves had earlier acknowledged in official records that Nath’s disability arose from official duty and that he was entitled to disability pension.

Calling the rejection a “vain attempt” to deny legitimate benefits, the court quashed the CRPF orders issued in February 2018 and February 2019, rejecting the widow’s claim.