AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Mongia, J.—The Petitioner was working as a Constable (Driver) in 51 Battalion C.R.P.F. while he was on sanctioned leave, he met with an accident on September 17, 1988, at Jalandhar. As a result of the accident, his left leg was damaged. He was taken to Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the C.M.C.) and after careful check up by the Board of Doctors, his left leg above knee had to be amputated. On December 16, 1988, the following medical certificate was issued by the C.M.C. authorities:
This is to certify that Mr. Mohinder Singh B-729401 was admitted in this hospital and an above knee amputation was done on left side. He has permanent disability of 80 per cent of his left lower limb according to Manual for Doctors to evaluate permanent physical impairment based on expert group meeting on disability evaluation.
The Commandant of the Battalion where the Petitioner was working sent a communication dated March 15, 1989 (copy Annexure P-2) to the Chief Medical Officer, Base Hospital, C.R.P.F., New Delhi, intimating that the C.M.C. authorities had given the aforementioned medical certificate in case of the Petitioner and requested that the Board of Officers may be detailed and the-individual may also be declared incapacitated for service due to amputation of his left leg. The Board issued a certificate that the Petitioner''s left leg above knee had been amputated and he is not suitable for C.R.P.F. job and should be invalidated out from the Force. Vide discharge order dated May 9, 1989, the Petitioner was invalidated out from the C.R.P.F. on account of the certificate issued by the Medical Board.
The Directorate General, C.R.P.F., had issued instructions on March 11, 1986, under the heading "Amendments to Guidelines of Central Welfare (Risk Premia) Fund Scheme, in which the benefits to the individuals Who might be invalidated or payment to the nominees of the persons who might die were provided. In case of invalidation, the following provision was introduced:
7....
(a)....
(b) Invalidation Cases:
(i) When a person becomes completely incapacitated or rendered absolutely immobile on account of disability like, complete insanity/ total blindness total deafness/ amputation of both upper limbs at any level/amputation of one upper limb at shoulder level (right limb for right handed person) or left limb for left handed person) amputation of both lower limbs at any level/ amputation of one limb at hip level/paraplegia/'' hemiplegia/guadriplegia/ankylosing spondylitis with complete stiffness of all major joins/Rheumatoid Arthertis with complete stiffness of all major joints, will be entitled a lump sum grant of Rs. 15,000 besides a recurring payment of Rs. 200 P.M. for 15 years.
(ii) In other and routine cases of invalidation lump sum grant of Rs. 15,000 only will be paid.
The aforesaid provision was further revised,---vide instructions dated June 2, 1988, copy Annexure P-6 (with effect from May 4, 1988). The amended provision reads as under:
7....
(i)....
(ii) Invalidation Cases:
When a person becomes Completely incapaciated or is rendered absolutely immobile on account of disability. (Cases already defined under Para 2(b) (i) of letter No. RF.3/81--86 Adm. II dated 11th March, 1986) will be entitled to a lumpsum grant of Rs. 25,000 plus monthly recurring payment of Rs. 400 p.m. for 20 years or until death of force person whichever is later. Recurring benefits at the increased rates will also be applicable to the old cases under this category from, May, 1988, onwards only.
The Petitioner who was invalidated out of the C.R.P.F. on account of permanent disability claimed benefit of the aforesaid instructions that he should be paid a grant of Rs. 25,000 plus monthly recurring payment of Rs. 400. However, the Petitioner was granted only Rs. 15,000 under para 7(b) (ii) of the Instructions dated March, 11. 1986, already quoted above. This led the Petitioner to file the present writ petition.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner Was permanently disabled and even according to the medical certificate issued by the C.M.C., the disability was 80 per, cent. On the basis of this disability, the Petitioner was invalidated out of the C.R.P.F. According to the learned Counsel, the object of the instructions issued by the Respondents is to compensate and rehabilitate an employee who might be invalidated out because of the incapacitation suffered during the service. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Ex. Naik Bhag Chand v. Director General, Central Reserve Force 1992 (2) S.L.R. 387, where the aforesaid instructions came up for interpretation.
On the other hand, the case of the Respondents is that according to the instructions dated March 11, 1986, if the amputation of one limb is at hip level, only then the individual is entitled to the benefit of para 7(b) (i) of the instructions as amended and since in the present case, the amputation of one leg was above knee and not at hip level, the Petitioner was not entitled to benefit under para 7(b) (i) but could only be granted compensation under para 7(b) (ii) of the instructions dated March 11, 1986 and accordingly, he had been paid a sum of Rs. 15,000.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there is force, in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Admittedly, there was permanent physical impairment of the Petitioner and the permanent disability was evaluated as 80 per cent by the Experts in the C.M.C. The Petitioner had been invalidated out from, the C.R.P.F. because of the amputation of his leg and permanent disability. The object behind the instructions is to rehabilitate and compensate an officer who might have been incapacitated due to an injury suffered during service. What is to be seen is the disability and not the exact place as to from where a particular limb is amputated. Simply because in the present case, the left leg was amputated above knee and not at the hip level, it cannot deprive the Petitioner to claim benefit under the instructions as the whole idea is to see the disability. The Petitioner lost his job in the C.R.P.F. and the Respondents should have seen, to it that he is suitably compensated Under the relevant instructions. In Ex. Naik Bhag Chand''s case (supra), which was decided by the Division Bench of this Court, the medical certificate issued to the Petitioner in that case was as under:
No. 690483678, Naik Bhag Chand of HQ/48 B. C.R.P.F. has been declared completely and permanently incapacitated for further service in this department by the Chief Medical Officer, Base Hospital-I, C.R.P.F.-, New Delhi,--vide Medical Certificate dated 26th July, 1988 in consequence of 1-1/4 years old operated case of fracture neck and supracondylar fracture right femur and cruciate ligament tear left knee joint with residual moderate restriction of right hip and knee with inability to climb stairs and sit across legged with I "shortening of right lower limb.
The Division Bench came to the conclusion that the case of the Petitioner in that case was covered by para 7(b) (i) of the instructions and he was entitled to the grant of the benefits under that para as amended by the latter instructions dated June 2, 1988. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench.
For the foregoing reasons, we allow this writ petition and direct the Respondents to pay a lump sum grant of Rs. 25,000 to the Petitioner under para 7(b) (i) of the Instructions dated March 11, 1986, as amended,--wide instructions dated June 2, 1988, and also a sum of Rs. 400 per month for twenty years with effect from the date the Petitioner had been invalidated out or till his death whichever is earlier. The arrears so calculated be released to the Petitioner within a period of three months of the receipt of copy of this order from this Court, or a certified-Copy thereof from the
Petitioner. The Respondents will be entitled to adjust a sum of Rs. 15,000 which has already been paid to the Petitioner under para 7(b) (ii) of the Instructions dated March 11, 1986. We make no order as to costs.