IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUNEET KUMAR, J.
Smt. Raj Kumari Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P.Thru Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And ors – Respondents
Writ -A No. 6695 of 2016
Decided on : 27-04-2022
U.P. Police (Extra Ordinary Pension) (First Amendment) Rules, 1975 - Rule 3 - Challenge to impugned order - Deceased employee succumbed to injury caused due to electric shock - Whether temporary or otherwise gazetted/non-gazetted who are killed or die in an encounter with dacoits; armed criminals and foreign insurgencies or while performing any other duty in compliance of a direction/order – Person dies because of accident at the time of going or coming back after official duty, such person shall be entitled for extraordinary pension.
Findings of the Court :
It is not in dispute that deceased police official was duly deputed on a rescue mission duly recorded in G.D. and as per enquiry report. deceased employee complied with directions and successfully rescued trapped victims - In course of complying second leg of direction that victims are to be transported to Trauma Centre, deceased employee succumbed to injury caused due to electric shock at barrack - Death, in circumstances occurred while official was on duty complying official orders - Petitioner is entitled to extraordinary pension being covered under Rule 3 of Rules, 1975.
Result - Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Ms. Pallavi Dubey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record with their assistance.
2. Petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee (constable 2550 CP Indrasen Yadav), has raised challenge to the impugned order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the first respondent, Principal Secretary Home Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow, whereby, the claim of the petitioner for extraordinary pension admissible under U.P. Police (Extra Ordinary Pension) (First Amendment) Rules, 1975 (for short ‘Rules, 1975’) has been rejected on the ground that the circumstances leading to the death of the petitioner is not enumerated/contemplated under Rule 3 of Rules, 1975.
3. The respondents in the counter affidavit do not dispute that the deceased employee was given duty on 13.09.2012 as fellow traveller as per General Diary (G.D.) entry no. 59 at 18.45. On 14.09.2012, the deceased employee along with others was directed to proceed to Mohalla Sahjadpur, Kasta Amethi, to rescue the persons trapped under the wall that had collapsed due to heavy rain. Petitioner alongwith others proceeded on the spot and showing exemplary courage and valour, the police team was able to rescue the trapped victims under the collapsed wall. The police officials, including, the deceased employee, thereafter, were directed to take the injured to the nearby hospital/Trauma Centre. To comply the order, the deceased employee returned to the barrack for changing his wet clothes drenched in the heavy rain. While changing his apparel at the barrack, the deceased employee succumbed due to electrocution. It appears that the electric current had leaked causing the fatal injury. Circle Officer vide communication dated 22.09.2012, addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mohanlalganj, submitted a report, wherein, it has been recorded that the deceased employee’s rawangi is duly recorded at G.D. No. 29 on 14.09.2012, directing the deceased employee alongwith others to proceed to the spot to rescue the persons trapped under the collapsed wall. The team was able to rescue the trapped victims and thereafter the rescue team was directed to get the victims admitted in the hospital/Trauma Centre. The deceased employee succumbed to injury caused by the leakage of electric current at the barrack where he had gone to change his drenched clothes.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State-respondent that since the deceased employee succumbed to injury caused by electric current, it cannot be said that he was on official duty within the meaning of Rule 3 of Rules, 1975.
5. Rule 3 for ready reference is extracted:
^^3- ;g fu;ekoyh jkT;iky ds cuk;s fu;e l fueaf=r
gksus okys LFkk;h ;k vLFkk;h :i es lsok;ksftr lHkh iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksaa vkSj deZpkfj;ks ¼jktif=r vkSj vjktif=r nksuks½ ij ykxw gksxh tks Mkdqvks ;k l'kL= vijkf/k;ksa ;k fons'kh izfrjksf/k;ks ls yMus sa ;k fdlh vU; drZO; dk ikyu djus ds nkSjku ekjs tk;s ;s ftudh e`R;q gks tk;sA^^
6. The Rule, inter alia, is applicable to the police officers whether temporary or otherwise gazetted/non-gazetted who are killed or die in an encounter with dacoits; armed criminals and foreign insurgencies or while performing any other duty in compliance of a direction/order.
7. On bare perusal of the Rule 3, it appears that the Rule is inclusive and non exhaustive, the expression ‘or any other duty’ encompasses within fold any assigned duty.
8. In the backdrop of Rule 3, it is evident that the deceased employee was deputed on a mission of rescuing the victims trapped under the collapsed wall due to heavy rain. The victims were successfully rescued and thereafter on the direction of the officials the deceased employee and others were required to carry the injured to Trauma Centre at Lucknow. The petitioner to comply the order had gone to the barrack to change his wet clothes and suffered electricity current shoc
SupremeToday
Point of Law - Person dies because of accident at the time of going or coming back after official duty, such person shall be entitled for extraordinary pension.
The duty of a police personnel to tackle 'anti-social elements' as per the Government Order can make them eligible for extraordinary pension under Rule 3 of the U.P. Police Extraordinary Pension Rule....
Extraordinary pension can be granted to police personnel who die while on duty, as per the Government Order dated 19.08.1988.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to extraordinary family pension under the Central Civil Services (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules, 1939, in cases where the death of ....
The court emphasized that extraordinary family pension claims should be liberally interpreted, rejecting denial based on unsupported allegations of intoxication.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.