Orissa HC Dismisses Govt's Challenge Against Grant Of Compensation To Retired Postal Assistant Who Was Handicapped In Parcel Bomb Blast

The Orissa High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging grant of capitalised value of disability pension/compensation to a retired postal employee who lost his limbs and suffered 75% disability due to a parcel bomb blast while on duty.While expressing disinclination to entertain the writ petition, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held that the government authorities should not have felt aggrieved to grant the amount since it was a paltry sum of compensation. It further said –“Moreover, since lump sum compensation amount claimed by the opposite party is not exorbitant, interference by this Court is not desired, particularly when the opposite party had received injury while on duty on 03.01.2002 and was continuously under treatment in different hospitals for years together and there was fixation of his artificial limbs. Thus, we find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.”Case Background The opposite party Pranabananda Dash was working as a Postal Assistant in Suryanagar Non-Delivery Type Sub-Office (NDTSO), Bhubaneswar. On 03.01.2002, while on duty, he was severely injured in a parcel bomb blast as a result of which he lost one hand and one leg. The incident led to his absence from service with effect from 03.01.2002 to 26.05.2004, for about two years and five months.During the aforesaid period, the opposite party received treatment at several medical facilities and also underwent fixation of artificial limbs. Upon rejoining the duty, his leave for the entire period was sanctioned under the head of Disability and Hospital Leaves under Central Civil Services (Leaves) Rules, 1972. Upon his superannuation in 2010, he submitted an application for disability pension, which was rejected by the authorities. He challenged the same before the Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack which asked the authorities to consider his representation. However, his representation was turned down again in 2015. Shortly thereafter, he made an application for grant of the capitalised value of the disability pension in lieu of disability pension. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office (SSPO) held that that opposite party deserves to be paid the lump sum capitalised value of pension and accordingly, forwarded the application to Senior Accounts Officer (Pension), Cuttack for grant of the same. But the Senior Accounts Officer rejected the claim on the ground of delay.The superannuated employee had no option but to challenge the same again before the Tribunal which asked the SSPO to consider the representation of the man. But the SSPO again turned down the representation on the basis of delay highlighted by the Senior Accounts Officer. This denial again led to another round of litigation before the Tribunal. The Tribunal ultimately upheld the right of the retired employee and categorically held that the opposite party has a recurring cause of action which could not have been brushed aside on the ground of delay. Unfortunately, this order was again challenged by the government before the High Court through a writ petition.Govt dragging poor employee for “paltry amount”The Court cited the Bhusawal Municipal Council v. Nivrutti Ramchandra Phalak & Ors. (2013) wherein the Supreme Court had expressed resentment over the State/authority often dragging poor claimants, even for payment of a “paltry amount”, up to the Constitutional Courts thereby wasting the public money in luxury litigations without realising that poor citizens cannot afford the exorbitant costs of litigation.“Having heard the parties at length, by taking into consideration all the materials on record and in view of the reasoning recorded by the learned Tribunal, we are of the humble view that the opposite party, who was a poor employee and lost his limbs in a bomb blast during course of his employment, the petitioners should not have felt aggrieved to challenge the impugned order whereby the learned Tribunal has directed to implement the order of the SSPO, Bhubaneswar Division dated 30.01.2015,” the Court observed.Therefore, considering the disability sustained by the ex-employee due to a bomb blast during the course of his duty, his prolonged treatment and demand for a meagre amount, the Bench directed the government authorities to grant the capitalised pension/compensation amount of Rs. 1,83,823/- without further delay.Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Pranabananda DashCase No: WP(C) No. 496 of 2025Date of Order: July 04, 2025Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. P.K. Parhi, Dy. Solicitor General of India along with Mr. Jyananda Panda, Central Govt CounselCounsel for the Opposite Party: None Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 89Click Here To Read/Download Order

Orissa HC Dismisses Govt's Challenge Against Grant Of Compensation To Retired Postal Assistant Who Was Handicapped In Parcel Bomb Blast

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Orissa HC Dismisses Govt's Challenge Against Grant Of Compensation To Retired Postal Assistant Who Was Handicapped In Parcel Bomb Blast

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers