No Liberalised Family Pension For Death During Casual Leave; Direct Causal Link With Official Duty Essential: Delhi HC

Background

Surender Yadav was serving with the 181st Battalion of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in Srinagar. He had taken 14 days of casual leave in November 2014 to visit his ailing father. On November 9, 2014, while riding a motorcycle with his wife and daughter, he met with a fatal accident. He was taken to a hospital in Alwar, where he was declared dead.

Following his death, a Court of Inquiry (“COI”) was convened at the 181st Battalion's headquarters. The COI concluded that SI Yadav's death occurred while he was 'on duty' and recommended that his family be granted Liberalized Family Pension, Extra-Ordinary Family Pension, and Ex-Gratia Compensation. However, when his widow (Leela Yadav) applied for these benefits, her request was denied by the CRPF through a letter dated September 16, 2016. The authorities reasoned that SI Yadav's death did not occur in the performance of official duties and therefore did not qualify for such benefits. Aggrieved, the widow challenged this rejection before the Delhi High Court.

Arguments

The widow, Leela Yadav, argued that the Office Memorandum (OM) dated April 20, 2011, classified deaths occurring under certain circumstances into five categories. She argued that SI Yadav's case fell under Category C (death due to an accident in the performance of duties) or Category D (death due to violence by terrorists or anti-social elements). She also referred to another Office Memorandum dated September 11, 1998, which provided special benefits such as Ex-Gratia Compensation for government employees who died in service. She asserted that since SI Yadav's service was in Srinagar, a terrorist-prone area, Ex-Gratia Compensation should be granted. Further, she pointed out that the COI had itself concluded that SI Yadav's death occurred while 'on duty'. Lastly, she argued that even the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules (Leave Rules), an employee on casual leave is still considered on duty. Thus, she argued, that she was entitled to the benefits claimed.

On the other hand, the Union argued that SI Yadav's death did not occur in the course of official duty but rather while he was on personal leave at his hometown. They submitted that the Office Memorandum placed such incidents under Category A (deaths due to natural causes or accidents unrelated to government duty), which did not entitle the family to special compensation. The Union also emphasized that the petitioner had already received compensation through the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and could not claim additional benefits under government rules.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court examined the classification under the Office Memorandum dated April 20, 2011. It held that Category C requires the accident to occur during the performance of duty. The court ruled that the examples listed under Category C show that there must be a direct causal link between the accident and official responsibilities. Noting that SI Yadav was on personal leave at the time of his accident, the court ruled that he was not engaged in any government-assigned task. Therefore, it held, that his death did not satisfy the criteria under Category C.

Secondly, the court rejected the argument that an employee on casual leave is automatically deemed 'on duty' for pensionary benefits. It acknowledged that under service rules, casual leave is not counted as a break in service. However, that alone does not establish entitlement to special compensation. Instead, the court explained that the death must occur in circumstances related to the performance of official duties. Citing Union of India v. Jujhar Singh ((2011) 7 SCC 735), the court noted that an injury sustained during leave does not necessarily have a service connection unless a causal link to official duty is shown.

Thirdly, the court addressed the COI's conclusion that SI Yadav's death might have been linked to terrorism due to his service in Srinagar. It found no evidence to support this assumption. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had already investigated the accident and held that it was a routine road mishap, with no terrorist involvement. Thus, the court held that mere speculation by the COI was not sufficient to bring the case under Category D.

Lastly, the court also distinguished this case from Union of India v. Ex Naik Surendra Pandey (2015) 13 SCC 625, where an accident was linked to official duty as it occurred during travel for government service. In contrast, the court noted that SI Yadav's travel was entirely for personal reasons. Further, the court noted that the petitioner had already received compensation from the MACT. It held that allowing additional Ex-Gratia Compensation under government pension rules would lead to a double benefit, which was not the scheme's intent.

Thus, the court dismissed the writ petition. It found no basis for awarding Liberalized Family Pension, Extra-Ordinary Family Pension, or Ex-Gratia Compensation. It ruled that the widow was only entitled to a normal family pension, which had already been granted.

Decided on: 28-01-2025

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:455-DB

Title: Leelam v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 278

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Changez Ali Khan, Ms. Mishika Pandita, Mr. Yash Narian, Mr. Shiv Kumar Singh (SI, CRPF), Mr. Ramniwas Yadav (CRPF)

Click Here To Read/Download The Order