Liberal construction of SPG duty coverage extended ex-gratia relief to injury sustained during official travel to duty post.

The circular for SPG personnel was construed liberally to advance its object of granting special relief for injuries linked to duty-related risk, and the phrase "actual VIP security duty" was read in that broader context. Applying notional extension, travel in an official SPG vehicle from staff quarters to the duty post was treated as part of the duty sphere because the accident had a causal connection with employment. The appellant was therefore deemed to have been on actual VIP security duty and entitled to ex-gratia payment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, injured while travelling in an official SPG vehicle on the way from staff quarters to duty, was entitled to ex-gratia payment under the circular governing SPG personnel suffering permanent partial disablement while performing actual VIP security duty.

Analysis: The circular was intended to grant special relief to SPG personnel exposed to exceptional risk, and its later modification showed a broader scheme covering injuries sustained even while on duty other than actual VIP security duty. The expression "actual VIP security duty" had to be read in the light of the object of the scheme and with a liberal construction, not a narrow one. Applying the principle of notional extension, the journey in an official SPG vehicle provided for carrying personnel to the duty post formed part of the duty sphere. The accident had a causal connection with the employment and was an incident of the appellant's duty, comparable to the "course of employment" test in workmen's compensation jurisprudence.

Conclusion: The appellant was deemed to have been on actual VIP security duty while travelling in the official SPG vehicle and was entitled to the ex-gratia payment.

---