SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Raj) 906

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, G.R. MOOLCHANDANI, JJ.
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Geeta Kumari - Respondent
Special Appeal Writ No. 378 of 2018, 628 of 2018, 634 of 2018
Decided On : 24-08-2018

Advocates Appeared:
G.S. Gill, Adv., Vandana Sharma, Adv., Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv.

The distinction between 'die' and 'killed' in the legal context is crucial for the interpretation of the rule.

Headnote:

Interpretation - Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996, Rule 109 - Court analyzed the interpretation of Rule 109 and the distinction between 'die' and 'killed'.

Fact of the Case:

Appeals filed regarding special pension under the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996.

Finding of the Court:

Court analyzed the interpretation of Rule 109 and the distinction between 'die' and 'killed'.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the word 'killed' should have been used instead of 'die' in certain clauses of the rule.

Result: The appeals were dismissed.

JUDGMENT

1. D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.276/2018 in SAW No.378/2018, D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.477/2018 in SAW No.628/2018 & D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.478/2018 in SAW No.634/2018,

1. For the reasons mentioned in the applications delay in filing the appeals is condoned.

2. Applications are allowed.

D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.378/2018, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.628/2018 & D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.634/2018:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Challenge in D.B. Civil Special Appeal(W) No.378/2018 is to an order dated 14.11.2017 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent and directing appellant to pay special pension, in addition to the family pension in terms of Rule 109 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996.

3. Challenge in D.B. Civil Special Appeal(W) No.628/2018 is to an order dated 05.01.2018 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent of said appeal granting similar relief to her.

4. Challenge in D.B. Civil Special Appeal(W) No.634/2018 is to an order dated 05.01.2018 granting similar benefit to the respondent of the said appeal.

5. The husbands of the three respondents were employed as Constable, Assistant Sub Inspector and Assistant Inspector respectively in Rajasthan Police. It is not in dispute that the husbands of the three respondents died at a road accident while on duty. Family pension was sanctioned. Special pension as per Rule 109 of the Rules, 1996 was claimed by the ladies. The Rule reads as under.

"109. Applicability.

The rules in this Chapter shall apply to the following categories of Government servants on pensionable establishment whether temporary or permanent -

(1) Police personnel whether in regular or irregular units including R.A.C. upto the rank of Commandant & Superintendent of Police (other than IPS officers) who-

(i) die as a result of encounter with dacoits,

(ii) killed while on duty, including Class IV servants followers & other noncombatant staff attached to Police Force,

(iii) die as a result of encounter with criminals or in the course of confrontation with mobs or crowds during agitation, riot or disturbances etc.

(2) Personnel of Preventive Branch of the Excise Department upto the rank of Excise Officer (Preventive) who are killed or die as a result of injury sustained while undertaking raids."

6. A Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported as 2016(1) WLC (Raj.) 309, State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Smt. Suraj Kanwar had an occasion to interpret the Rule.

7. The contention of the State was that as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 109 three situations are envisaged which entitle the grant of special pension. The same are in clauses (i) to (iii) of sub-rule (1) of the Rules, 1996. As per the first situation is where the police official dies as a result of encounter with dacoits for which, the word "die" in clause (i) was highlighted. Emphasizing the word "killed" in clause (ii) the State argued that for the purposes of entitlement while on duty it has to be a case where the police officer was killed and the interesting part of the argument would be the distinction sought to be drawn between dying and being killed. With respect to clause (iii) the argument was that the use of the word "Die" in said clause shows that if death is the result of an encounter with criminals or in the course of confrontation with mobs or crowds during agitation, riot or disturbance alone could the special pension be awarded.

8. In Suraj Kanwar's case after noting the Rule and the contentions of the State the Division Bench reasoned as under in para 8 and para 9 of the decision. The two paragraphs read as under:-

"8. The husband of the respondent was a Constable Driver, a police personnel, who died while on duty. In sub-rule 1(i) of Rule 109 of the Pension Rules, 1996, special pension is payable where a police personnel dies as a result of encounter with dacoits; sub-rule 1(ii) is applicable where he is killed on duty, including Class IV servants followers and other nonco











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top