Extraordinary pension is restricted to deaths occurring under specific, enumerated circumstances prescribed by statute. A generic road accident during the commute to work falls outside these parameters, thus precluding entitlement to such benefits under the regulatory framework.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the husband of the original writ petitioner, who happens to be the wife of Sri Heera Lal Shukla was working in State Civil Police since 14.10.1972 as a Follower. On 02.10.1999, being the fateful day, the petitioner's husband was required from his residence to prepare a meal for the additional force who were camping in connection with election duty. The writ petitioner left his house at 11:30 p.m. and when the petitioner's husband was going to attend the duty on his bicycle, he was crushed by a Maruti Car at 11:30 p.m. near the AMC Supply Depot on the way from Charbagh side to Kanpur. A first information report stood lodged by the brother of the husband of the deceased with respect to fatal accident being Case Crime no.179/99 under Sections 279, 304-A, 427 IPC at P.S. Alambagh, Lucknow on 03.10.1999. The husband of the writ petitioner expired and a criminal proceeding stood triggered. Post death of husband of the writ petitioner before his date of his retirement, the writ petitioner staked his claim for grant of extra-ordinary pension and the said claim came to be rejected on 07.06.2002 by the order of the State Government.

3. Though initially, the petition was preferred seeking mandamus to extend the extraordinary pension in terms of Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules 1961, but consequent to the rejection of the claim, amendment came to be filed, which was allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the consideration which weighed with the respondent is negating the claim of the writ petitioner that the husband of the writ petitioner happened to be a follower, who was called from his house for preparing meal and he met with an accident on account whereof he died, thus the original writ petitioner, who happens to be the widow, who also expired and now the legal heirs are entitled to extraordinary pension in terms of Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules 1961.

5. Submission is also to the extent that follower is a post, which is equivalent to cook /Kahar and as per Uttar Pradesh Police Group-D Employees Service Rules 2009, there are 7887 posts earmarked and sanctioned.

6. Contention is that the writ petitioner is entitled to be accorded extraordinary pension in that regard. Reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Service Single No.40 of 2011, Krishna Murari vs. State of U.P. decided on 06.02.2009.

7. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that whatever might be, the issue is on a larger aspect relatable to the fact that even if it is treated that the writ petitioner is a regular employee, then too in view of the provisions contained under Rule 3 of the 1961 Rules, further read with Rule 5 , none of the contingencies for grant of extraordinary pension stands extracted as it is not the case of death due to attack/fight with dacoits/criminals/foreign hostiles/extremists/ terrorists/naxalites, death due to attack by aggressive public, death due to accident, while undergoing important training/demonstration, death during rescue and relief operations undertaken during natural calamities like flood/earthquake/landslide/snow storm etc. or man made disasters like train accidents, tanker blast etc., death while extingu