Administrative lapses or missing internal records cannot justify denial of rightful ex-gratia compensation to a beneficiary.

The applicant’s husband, Shri Rajesh Kumar, served as a Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the Military Engineer Services (MES).

He was posted at a high-altitude area in Karu, Leh, where he died on November 19, 2009, due to "sudden cardiac arrest" while performing bona fide government duties in extreme weather conditions.

Following his death, the applicant received standard terminal benefits and a regular family pension.

In May 2020, the applicant submitted a representation seeking ex-gratia lump-sum compensation of ₹15.00 Lakhs and a revision of her family pension under the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, citing relevant Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandums (OMs).

The respondents processed the case through multiple offices for years but ultimately stalled the claim, citing the absence of a "Court of Inquiry" report to establish the link between death and official duty, asserting the case was time-barred, and claiming the FIR and Post-Mortem reports were insufficient.

1. Whether the claim for ex-gratia compensation and revision of pension is barred by the doctrine of limitation or delay given that the death occurred in 2009?

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to ₹15.00 Lakhs ex-gratia compensation and revised extraordinary pension under Category "B" of the relevant DoPT OMs regarding deaths in extreme weather conditions?

The Tribunal applied the DoPT OM No. 45/55/97-P&PW(C) dated 11.09.1998 and the OM dated 03.02.2000, which categorize deaths in harness for compensation purposes, specifically Category "B" regarding death due to extreme weather conditions.

The compensation rate was revised to ₹15.00 Lakhs per DoPT OM dated 02.09.2008.

Regarding the issue of delay, the Tribunal relied on the principles established in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India (1995) and Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2008), which hold that matters involving pension and salary constitute a "continuous cause of action" and are not entirely hit by limitation.

Additionally, the Tribunal noted the duties of Welfare Officers to assist the next of kin under DoPT OM dated 09.10.1998.

The Tribunal observed that the respondents handled the case with "extreme casualness" and "administrative lapse," noting that the file was repeatedly "tossed from one office to another" for years.

It held that the respondents' failure to preserve the Court of Inquiry records or conduct proper proceedings at the time of death cannot be used as a ground to deny the widow her rightful dues.

The Tribunal rejected the plea of limitation, concluding that the non-payment of the correct ex-gratia amount resulted in a lower fixed pension, thereby creating a continuing wrong.

It emphasized that the applicant's husband died in a specified high-altitude area and the evidence (FIR and Post-Mortem) sufficiently supported the claim under Category "B" of the 2000 OM.

The Tribunal criticized the lack of empathy and the failure of the respondents to adhere to their own guidelines to aid the families of deceased employees.

The respondents were directed to: 1. Pay ₹15.00 Lakhs as ex-gratia compensation to the applicant; 2. Immediately revise the applicant's family pension; 3. Pay interest at GPF rates on the ex-gratia amount for the period of delay; 4. Complete all actions within three months; 5. Pay costs of ₹10,000 to the Poor Patients Fund, PGI, Chandigarh, as a penalty for administrative casualness.