Kerala High Court Grants Extraordinary Family Pension To Kin Of CRPF Personnel Who Died On Duty, Denied On Allegation Of Being Inebriated

Justice D.K. Singh relied upon the Apex Court decision in Renu Devi v Union of India(2020) which held that death occurring due to participation in sports events/adventures/activities would also be considered as death in the performance of duty.

Court stated, “It is not in dispute that the petitioner's husband died while on duty on 24.03.2016. There is no finding either in the COI or postmortem report or in the FSL report to suggest that the husband of the petitioner was in an inebriated condition. The rejection of the claim by the PAO CRPF vide the impugned order on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was in inebriated condition, and therefore, rejected the claim for granting extraordinary family pension is not supported by any material which was before them.When the CRPF authorities themselves have found that the death of the petitioner's husband was on duty, and there was no material to suggest that he was in the inebriated condition as alleged by PAO, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to extraordinary family pension under the CCS (Extraordinary pension) Rules.”

In the facts of the case, the petitioner-wife of the deceased has approached the Court for extraordinary family pension under Central Civil Service (Extraordinary Pension) Rules of 1972.

Her husband who was employed as Constable General duty in the CRPF was deployed at Naxal infested area in Bijapur of Chhattisgarh died of drowning in a water pond near their camp while on duty on March 24, 2016.

The Court Of Inquiry (COI) rejected the Extraordinary Family Pension stating that her husband died drowning in pond during the Holi celebration in an inebriated condition.

The Counsel for Petitioner submitted that her husband's death was due to Asphyxia due to partial drowning as per the post mortem report. It was stated that there was no evidence to state that he had consumed liquor or any other intoxicant. It was further submitted that CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules must be given liberal interpretation to support the families of CRPF personnel who do difficult jobs hostile and adverse conditions.

The Court found that the COI (Court of Inquiry) did not mention that the petitioner's husband was in an inebriated condition. It thus found that the PAO without any evidence concluded that the deceased was in an inebriated condition to reject his Extraordinary Family Pension.

Relying upon Rule 3A and Rule 10 of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, the Court said, “When the death in service is attributable to Government servant, extraordinary family pension is to be computed in terms of CCS (extraordinary pension) Rules and the scheme for liberalized pension awards. If the death in service is attributable to Government duty, the family pension is to be calculated as a minimum pay in the pay band plus grade pay and minimum basic pay in the revised scale of pay.”

The Court further noted that the petitioner's husband died while on duty by relying upon the Apex Court decision in Renu Devi (Supra). In that case, the Apex Court interpreted Pension Regulation for the Army to state that the family of the deceased was eligible for Special Family Pension even when death occurred during participation in organizing sports events/adventures/activities.

As such, the writ petition was allowed and the Court concluded that the Petitioner was eligible for Extraordinary Family Pension under the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates S.Shanavas Khan, S.Indu, Kala G.Nambiar

Counsel for Respondents: Advocate N.S.Daya Sindhu Shree Hari

Case Title: Linimol K v Union of India

Case No: WP(C) NO. 32831 OF 2023

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 133