Instances when Special Compensations are Granted

Rajanna vs. Union of India

Filed Under: Workmen's Compensation Act
Appellant: Rajanna
Respondent: Union of India
Citation: JT 1995 (3) SC 632
Court: In the Supreme Court of India
Judges: J.S. Verma and Mrs. Sujata Manohar

Rajanna filed this appeal claiming payment on account of injuries that he sustained while on duty.

Facts

Rajanna was a security assistant in the Special Protection Group attached to the Cabinet Secretariat and was amongst the security personnel attached to the Prime Minister's Office. One day, he was required to be on duty at the South Block.

According to the official arrangement an official SPG vehicle picked up some members of the SPG personnel including Rajanna. The vehicle met with an accident and Rajanna sustained certain injuries resulting in permanent partial disablement. As a result of the disability, he became unsuitable for providing security to the VIPs and was shifted to a less important post which also reduced his special allowance from 50% to 25%.

Rajanna claimed special compensation of Rs. 50,000 in accordance with a circular issued by the Cabinet Secretariat of the Central Government. According to this circular, an SPG personnel who suffered permanent partial disablement as a result of injuries received while performing actual "VIP service duty" was entitled to a payment of Rs. 50,000 by the Government. Rajanna's claim was rejected on the grounds that the grant was not applicable to his case.

Rajanna then filed an appeal in the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming the above amount. The claim was contested by the UOI on the grounds that Rajanna had not sustained injuries while he was performing "actual VIP security duty" as required by the circular. The disablement had taken place as a consequence of a motor accident that had occurred before Rajanna had joined the actual duty. The Tribunal rejected the appeal. Rajanna then filed this appeal.

Observations of the Court

The Court referred to the modification that had been made to the circular in which the extent of the circular's application had been enlarged. According to the Court this modification clearly mentioned the fact that the provision has to be made for payment for injuries sustained not only while performing "actual VIP duty" but also while performing duties other than the latter.

The Court referred to previous relevant judgments and contended that under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Circular, Rajanna was entitled to the payment. According to the Court, the facts clearly showed that he had sustained injuries while he was traveling from the staff quarters in the official SPG vehicle for duty.

The Court pointed out that this road journey was not in Rajanna's private vehicle or public transport but in an official SPG vehicle meant for carrying the SPG personnel on duty. The Court held that in light of these facts it could not be doubted that the accident took place while Rajanna was on duty.

The Court observed that the Tribunal had made an error in interpreting the provisions mentioned in the circular. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with Rs. 10,000/- as costs.

Cases Referred:

  • Mackinnon Makenzie & Co. Pvt Ltd. vs. Ibrahim Mahommed Issak, 1970 (1) SCR 869
  • Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. vs. Bai Valu Raja & Ors., AIR 1958 SC 881
  • Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co. vs. Highley, 1917 AC 352