ORDER
K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The petitioner is the mother of late D.S.Bisht, who was serving as Assistant Commandant in 80 Battalion, Border Security Force, and who died in a road accident while he was undergoing signal training in Signal Training School, Tigri Camp, New Delhi. The petitioner claimed extraordinary pension under Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules. On the 19th of November, 1996, the Ministry of Home Affairs had rejected petitioner's claim of extraordinary pension on the ground that the deceased was not strictly on Government duty/service, at the time of his death and, therefore, extraordinary pension was not admissible to the dependent parents.
2. The fact that late D.S.Bisht was deputed for depute for Signal Course at Signal Training School, Tigri Camp, New Delhi is not disputed. On that fateful day, i.e., 12.7.95, the deceased had taken permission to go out of the camp and met with an accident.
3. The main question is: Whether the accident occurred during the course of employment and whether the deceased, the son of the petitioner, could be stated to have been not strictly on Government duty/service, at the time of his death? It is stated in the Counter-affidavit:
'However, the contention that the death of the officer occurred during the course of the performance of his official duties is not correct and hence not acceptable, since the officer had sought verbal permission to attend to his personal work at Pushpa Bhawan, CGO Complex and meet his relatives and proceeded on private work, he cannot be considered to be `on duty' in terms of para 4(b) of the said guidelines and hence not eligible for EOP as prayed for.'
4. At the time of arguments, it was submitted that an inquiry was conducted about the nature of the accident and from there it was ascertained that the deceased had been on some private work though it is not disputed that he had taken permission to go out of the training camp. It is stated in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit:
'Para-10:- In accordance with para 4(6) of the guidelines attached with EOP Rules, an accident which occurs when a man is not strictly 'on duty' may be attributable to Government Service if the risk is not common to human existence in modern conditions in India. Since the accident occurred while the officer was crossing the road which is a common accident in modern conditions it was considered that the case was not covered under para 4(b) & (c) of the guidelines attached to EOP rules.'
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.P.Khurana, submitted that the petitioner had two sons. The deceased was working as Assistant Commandant. The other son is not well educated. The husband of the petitioner(father of the deceased) is a retired teacher and the petitioner was a dependent on the deceased son, and, thereforee, the petitioner was entitled to the extraordinary pension. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.P.Khurana, the accident occurred during the course of employment and whether at the time of accident the deceased was on official duty or not would not be relevant.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents, Ms.Rekha Palli, submitted that though respondents would admit that the deceased was deputed at Delhi for training and at the time of accident, he was out of the training camp on permission, the deceased did not meet with an accident while performing official duty. thereforee, the petitioner would not be entitled to extraordinary pension.
7. Para 3(1) of the Appendix 12 of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules defines 'accident'. The same reads as under:-
'Accident' means_
(i) a sudden and unavoidable mishap, or
(ii) a mishap due to an act of devotion to duty in an emergency arising otherwise than by violence out of and in the course of service.'
8. Para 3(6) of the Appendix 12 of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules defines 'risk of office'. The same reads as under:-
'Risk of office' means any risk not being a special risk, of accident or disease to which a Government servant is exposed in the course of and as a consequent of his duties, but nothing shall be deemed to be a risk of office which is a risk common to human existence in modern conditions in India, unless such risk is definitely enhanced in kind or degree by the nature, conditions, obligations or incidents of Government service.
Note:_The 'risk of office' shall include the risk of death of injury to which a Government servant is exposed where he attends on a working day, or is required to attend on a holiday, the place of his employment fo the performance of his duties any riot or civil commotion in town, city or village concerned, including any suburban areas contiguous there to, and while proceeding from his residence to the place of his employment or vice versa becomes a victim of the said riot or commotion.'
9. Para 3(7) of the Appendix 12 of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules defines 'special risk'. The same reads as under:-
'Special risk' means_
(i) a risk of suffering injury by violence;
(ii) a risk or injury by accident to which a Government servant is exposed in course of, and as a consequence of, the performance of any particular duty which has the effect of material increasing his liability to such injury beyond the normal risks of his office;
(iii) a risk of contracting disease to which a medical officer is exposed as a result of attending in the course of his official duty to a veneral or septicamic patient or conducting a post mortem examination in pursuance of that duty.'
10. Para 3-A.(2) of the Appendix 3 of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules reads as under:-
'There shall be a causal connection between
(a) disablement and Government service; and
(b) death and Government service,
for atributability 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.'
11. In interpreting this guideline, para 4.(b) of Appendix 3 has to be seen. The word of duty is defined in Appendix III paragraph 4(b). The same reads as under:
'A person subject to the disciplinary code of the Central Armed Police Battalions, is `on duty'_
(i) When performing an official task or a task, failure to do which would constitute an offence, triable under the disciplinary code, applicable to him.
(ii) When moving from one place of duty to another place of duty irrespective of the method of movement.
(iii) During the period of participation in recreation, organized or permitted by service authorities, and during the period of traveling in a body or singly under organized arrangements.
(iv) When proceeding from his duty station to his leave station on returning to duty from his leave station at public expenses, that is, on railway warrant, on cash TA (irrespective of whether railway warrant/cash TA is admitted for the whole journey or for a portion only), in Government transport or when road mileage is paid for the journey.
(v) When journeying by a reasonable route from one's official residence to and back from the appointed place of duty irrespective of the mode of conveyance, whether private or provided by the Government.'
12. If the petitioner is able to show that the deceased was on duty as per the guidelines, the petitioner would be entitled to extraordinary pension.
13. Paragraph 4.(c) of Appendix 3 of the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules reads as under:-
'An accident which occurs when a man is not strictly `on duty' as defined above, may also be attributable to service, provided that it involved risk which was definitely enhanced in kind or degree by the nature, conditions, obligations or incidents of his service and that the same was not a risk common to human existence in modern conditions in India. Thus, for example, where a person is killed or injured by someone by reason of his belonging to an Armed Police Battalion (and in the course of his duty in such service, he had incurred wrath of such person) he shall be deemed to be `on duty' at the relevant time.
This benefit will be given more liberally to the claimant in cases occurring on 'active service' as defined in the relevant Acts/Rules (e.g., those applicable to BSF/CRPF, etc., Personnel).
14. As noticed above, the accident occurred at 6.00 p.m. in Delhi when the petitioner was not on duty. As per the terms of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, extraordinary pension could be paid only if the employee had died during the course of service. The accident had occurred at 6.00 p.m. near Mool Chand Hospital, New Delhi. At that time, the deceased was not on duty. thereforee, the case of the petitioner would not come within the ambit of Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules.
15. Mr. P.P. Khurana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in 'Regional Director, ESI Corporation & Another v. Francis De Costa & Another' 1993 (4) SCC 100. The Supreme Court noticed that the respondent before the Supreme Court, was trekking down the road to attend to duty which found to be the accustomed route to reach the factory and just few minutes before i.e. 15 minutes before reporting to duty he was struck by the truck resulting in the employment injury, and, thereforee, the accident occurred during the course of his employment and he was thereby held to be entitled to compensation. thereforee, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court would not apply to the facts of the instant case.
16. I am not able to accept the submission that the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of extraordinary pension. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.