[2025:RJ-JP:31399]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18258/2011 Smt. Santosh Devi, Widow Of Late Shri Rohitashva Kumar, 24, Mehta Nagar, Kalwar Road, Govindpura, Opposite Karghani, Jaipur Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director General, Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur.

3. Additional Director, Pension And Pensioners Department, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

4. Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur Rural, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sohan Kumawat Mr. Shailendra Balwada For Respondent(s) : Ms. Karishma Soni for Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

12/08/2025

1. Petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 25.08.2011 issued by the respondents denying him Special Pension on account of death of her husband. Petitioner has further prayed for granting her Special Pension under Rule 268(1)

of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 along with payment of arrears.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner Late Shri Rohitashava Kumar was posted as Constable in Rajasthan Police Department. On 11.12.2010, while he was performing his duties of road accident that occurred while he was on duty. After his death, although regular pension and other benefits have been given to the petitioner, yet Special Pension which is admissible as per Rule 109 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 has not been provided.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Rule 109 of the Rules of 1996 can be invoked only in special circumstances mentioned in the Rule itself. Although, the petitioner was on duty when the said accident took place, yet mere road accident is not covered for sanctioning Special Pension under Rule 109 of the Pension Rules, 1996 hence, the respondent- Department has committed no mistake in denying Special Pension to the petitioner.

4. I have heard rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Rekha Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10091/2009) decided on 07.12.2010 wherein Co- ordinate Bench of this Court interpreted Rule 268(1) of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Provisions of 268(1) are pari materia to Rule 109 of the Rules of 1996. The Co-ordinate Bench while interpreting the Rules has observed in the following manner:-

"The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a Division Bench of this Court DBCWP No.1668/1987 decided on 11.01.1990 (Savita Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) has already struck down the provision aforesaid to the extent that restricts the grant of special pension to the persons killed while on duty as a result of enemy action. The relevant portion of the judgment referred above reads as follow:-

"We find force in the submissions with respect of Rule 268-I and Rule 268-J. As regards Rule 268-I no distinction can be made when a police personnel is killed while on duty and as a result of enemy action both die on duty so the benefit should be given to both whether they die on duty as a result of enemy action or they simply die while discharging duty without any enemy action. The said part of sub-rule (II) of Rule 268-I appears to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, that deserves to be struck down. So far as Rule 268-J is concerned that has to be read down so as to include police personnel who are killed or die while discharging their duty, so after the words 'killed or die" while discharging their duty should be read. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. This part of Sub-Rule (ii) of Rule 268-I "As a result of enemy action including action by paratroopers and Infiltrators from Pakistan" is struck down and the consequence thereof is the petitioner would be entitled to benefits as provided in Rule 268-I of the Rajasthan Service Rules and the Ru