Orissa High Court Upholds Disability Compensation For Postal Worker Injured In Parcel Bomb Blast | Rejects Delay-Based Denial As Legally Unsustainable | Poor Employee Should Not Be Forced Into Luxury Litigation Over ₹1.83 Lakh
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Orissa Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India and others, thereby upholding the directive issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench. The court confirmed the validity of the Tribunal’s order requiring the implementation of a 2015 directive issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices (SSPO), Bhubaneswar Division. This directive had allowed the payment of lump sum compensation equal to the capitalized value of disability pension in lieu of disability pension to a former postal employee who sustained severe injuries in the course of duty.
The Court found no illegality in the Tribunal’s observation that the case involved a recurring cause of action and that the rejection based solely on delay was legally untenable. Consequently, the High Court held that interference with the Tribunal’s decision was unwarranted. The writ petition was found devoid of merit and was accordingly dismissed.
The matter involved a former Postal Assistant who served at Suryanagar NDTSO, Bhubaneswar. While discharging his duties on 3 January 2002, he was critically injured in a parcel bomb explosion. The explosion resulted in the loss of one hand and one leg, necessitating extended medical treatment and rehabilitation.
Initially admitted at SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, he remained under medical care from 3 January 2002 to 13 October 2003. Subsequently, based on medical advice, he took rest from 14 October 2003 to 20 October 2003. Further treatment and artificial limb fitting were undertaken at NIRTAR, Olatpur, Cuttack between 21 November 2003 and 26 May 2004. Following recovery and the submission of all relevant medical documents, including a disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board of Khurda, Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar on 1 June 2004 certifying 75% disability, the individual resumed duty.
The postal authorities recognized his condition and, via order dated 2 March 2009, sanctioned leave amounting to two years, four months, and twenty-four days under the Disability Leave and Hospital Leave provisions of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. The employee retired on 30 November 2010 upon attaining the age of superannuation and was granted superannuation pension.
Post retirement, the employee applied for disability pension. The application was forwarded to the Director of Accounts (Postal), Cuttack, who in turn advised the Senior Postmaster, Bhubaneswar GPO to examine the claim under prevailing rules and guidelines. Upon failing to secure relief, the employee approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in OA No. 836 of 2014. The Tribunal disposed of the application on 24 November 2014 with directions to consider his representation.
Pursuant to this, the representation was rejected through an official order dated 22 November 2015. The individual again submitted a fresh application on 27 January 2015 requesting the sanction of a lump sum compensation equivalent to the capitalized value of disability pension.
The SSPO examined this request under relevant rules and found merit in the claim. Accordingly, the SSPO recommended disbursal of compensation and intimated the Sr. Accounts Officer (Pension), Cuttack. However, citing a delay in the application, the Sr. Accounts Officer rejected the request and communicated the same via letter dated 21 July 2015.
Aggrieved, the employee challenged the rejection before the Tribunal in OA No. 803 of 2015. On 27 March 2019, the Tribunal allowed the applicant to make a detailed representation to the SSPO, Bhubaneswar Division. The SSPO, through order dated 13 June 2019, again rejected the representation, prompting the applicant to file OA No. 260/00812 of 2019.
The High Court reviewed the Tribunal's decision and confirmed its legal validity. The Tribunal had determined that the employee’s claim for a lump sum compensation was subject to a “recurring cause of action” and thus could not be dismissed solely on grounds of delay. The Tribunal held that “the rejection of the claim by applying Rule 6 Central Civil Services (Extra-ordinary pension) Rules, 1939 is bad in law.”
The Tribunal further clarified that under amended Rule 4(4), the Head of Office bore the responsibility of processing claims for disability pension promptly. It was observed that “the accounts wing without examining the rule positions, as discussed above, objected to the proposal of the SSPO throwing the blame on the applicant, which at no stretch of imagination can be said to be legally tenable.”
The Tribunal noted that the SSPO had rejected the claim solely based on the Accounts Wing’s letter dated 28 May 2015, which itself lacked legal sustainability. Consequently, it quashed the rejection order dated 13 June 2019 and directed implementation of the earlier SSPO order from 30 January 2015.
The High Court drew upon Supreme Court precedent in Bhusawal Municipal Council v. Nivrutti Ramchandra Phalak [(2015) 14 SCC 327], which held: “The judicial process of the Court cannot subvert justice for the reason that the Court exercises its jurisdiction only in furtherance of justice.” The judgement further noted that “the State/authority often drags poor uprooted claimants even for payment of a paltry amount... wasting the public money in such luxury litigation.”
The Bench expressed concern over the unnecessary litigation and burden on the injured employee, noting: “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.” It also observed: “since lump sum compensation amount claimed by the opposite party is not exorbitant, interference by this Court is not desired.”
The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s directive and reiterated the following: “The order of rejection dated 13.06.2019 is hereby quashed and thereby the order passed by the SSPO, Bhubaneswar Division dated 30.01.2015 is directed to be implemented.”
The Tribunal had earlier instructed that: “The entire drill is directed to be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
The High Court concurred with the Tribunal’s rationale and held that there was “no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.” Accordingly, the High Court concluded:
“The writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. P.K. Parhi, Deputy Solicitor General of India along with Mr. Jyananda Panda, Central Government Counsel
Case Title: Union of India and Others v. Pranabananda Dash
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.496 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo, Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra
