The Delhi High Court clarified that the Defence Civilians Medical Aid Fund (DCMAF) Rules, being a statutory scheme & welfare fund, operate within the parameters laid down by their governing rules, and do not provide for ex gratia relief based on a general presumption of death. Rather, they mandate that death must either be attributable to specified medical conditions or must have occurred as a result of an accident.
The Court therefore denied ex gratia payment of Rs. 50,000, which is otherwise payable under the DCMAR Rules in the event of death in an accident, as the petitioner had merely lodged an online complaint through the DGEME Portal seeking entitlement to the said ex gratia payment, after finding that her deceased husband was a member of the DCMAF.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain observed that the presumption under Section 108 of the India Evidence Act, 1872, is a presumption of fact regarding death and not of the specific circumstances surrounding the death. Whereas, admittedly, the petitioner has only been able to establish that the deceased went missing since April 15, 1999 and was presumed to be dead in terms of the said Section 108 of the 1872 Act.
The Bench noted that although an FIR was lodged and the deceased was presumed to be dead upon expiry of seven years, the presumption of “death in an accident” lacks any factual or legal basis. The petitioner has not been able to establish that the deceased met with an accident.
The respondents are bound by the eligibility criteria prescribed in the DCMAF Rules, and to grant ex gratia relief in the absence of compliance with the DCMAF Rules would be beyond the scope of the statutory framework. Therefore, the Bench concluded that since the petitioner’s case does not satisfy either of the conditions prescribed under the DCMAF Rules, she cannot be granted ex gratia relief.
Briefly, the petitioner, a widow of an employee of the Vehicle Depot Workshop, EME, Delhi Cantt., under the Ministry of Defence, who also served the Indian Army Jat Regiment before joining the Vehicle Depot, claimed that her husband went missing on April 15, 1999, while proceeding to report for duty. The petitioner lodged an FIR regarding the incident of the disappearance of her husband, which was subsequently converted into a case of abduction/kidnapping under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Later, the family pension from the Army was granted to the petitioner by the Army Authorities, followed by the release of retirement gratuity by the Office of the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a civil suit seeking a declaration to the effect that her husband be presumed to be dead in law, and that the petitioner, along with her son, being the sole legal heirs of the deceased, are entitled to receive the Group Insurance amount.
The Civil Judge allowed the suit and declared the husband of the petitioner dead in terms of Section 108 of the 1872 Act. Consequently, all retirement benefits due to the deceased employee were extended to the petitioner. The death gratuity was also released to the petitioner. However, when she came to know that her deceased husband was a member of the DCMAF, she claimed entitlement to ex gratia payment under the DCMAF scheme and filed an online complaint through the DG EME portal. The Central Administrative Tribunal, however, dismissed the application.
Appearances:
Advocates Anirudh Sharma and Sudarshan Bhardwaj, for the Petitioner
CGSC Ripudaman Bhardwaj, along with Advocates Kushagra Kumar and Amit Kumar Rana, for the Respondent
