Ramkrishan Upadhyay
Chandigarh, November 1
While observing that the duty of an intelligence officer is not an ordinary one and he has to remain vigilant and collect information round the clock, the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has quashed an order of the Intelligence Bureau Headquarters, Delhi, by which it had rejected an application of an Assistant Intelligence Officer seeking disability pension.
The headquarters rejected the application of the officer on the ground that there was no proof that the officer got injured during service. Pawan Kumar Sharma (65), in the application filed before CAT through advocate Karnail Singh, said he was in charge of the Tawang station as Assistant Director.
On October 19, 2016, he received an intimation that one of the casual contacts was waiting for him in the Tawang market. He left the office for the market. On the way, he slipped and fell into a drain. His right knee was injured but in the absence of proper government medical facilities in the hill area, he took the injury lightly. On October 24, 2016, he was admitted to Guwahati Neurological Research Centre. But due to some logistical problems, he was discharged on November 17, 2016. During admission to the centre, he was superannuated on October 30, 2016.
He shifted to New Delhi and got admitted to Sri Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. The hospital doctors advised for the amputation of his right leg. Ultimately, his leg was amputated in January, 2017. He was declared a person with 80% permanent disability.
The department said the applicant had neither recorded anything about the visit in the office nor submitted any report on that day.
Karnail Singh argued the summary of the duties and objectives of the Intelligence Bureau stated that to meet the objectives, every officer had to be vigilant like a hawk round the clock and remain in touch with the local public.
Ramesh Singh Thakur, a member of CAT, observes in view of the service conditions and duties assigned to intelligence officers, the present original application is allowed and it is held that the injury has been caused to the applicant during the course of his service, which is covered under the duties to be performed as per officials order. Accordingly, the letter issued by the respondent is quashed and set aside and the applicant is held entitled to disability pension.
