[2025:RJ-JP:35141]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11681/2023 Smt. Heena Kausar W/o Late Shri Nisar Ahmed, aged about 42 years, Constable No. 08, R/o Ward No. 35, Chhawani Tonk Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. Secretariat Jaipur.

2. Director General of Police, Rajasthan Police Headquarter Rajasthan Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur

3. District Superintendent of Police, District Tonk Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Bandhu Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi Deputy Government Counsel.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

28/08/2025

1. By way of filing instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged orders dated 04.05.2022/13.05.2022, whereby benefit of special pension has been denied to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner, Shri Nisar Ahamad was holding the post of Constable in respondent-Police Department. While he was posted at Mehandwas, Tonk, on 19.01.2004, while discharging the duties, he met with an accident and consequently died. Although all other service benefits have been released by the respondents, yet the benefit of special pension, as admissible pursuant to Rule 268(K) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1951’), was not extended to the petitioner. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that similar benefits are also admissible as per Rule 109 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1996’). The reasons assigned in the impugned communication dated 04.05.2022/13.05.2022 are that such benefits can be granted only in the cases where death is directly caused in actual operation whereas the husband of the petitioner died on account of a road accident.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the term, “killed while on duty”, has been interpreted by this Court in various decisions including Mst. Papu Devi Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others, 2009 (2) WLC (Raj.) 158, Smt. Suraj Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 985/2019 decided on 11.11.2013) and decision of Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Smt. Meera Kanwar (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 988/2019 and other connected appeal decided on 10.01.2020), wherein after interpreting Rules 268(K) of the Rules of 1951, it has been held that the aforesaid rule being beneficial in nature, the benefit of special pension should be granted even to the dependents of officials, who die while on duty.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that as the death of husband of the petitioner was not on account of his involvement in any encounter with dacoits, nor did he die as a result of any encounter with criminals or any other operation prescribed under Rule 109 of the Rules of 1996. Therefore, special pension as referred in Rule 109 of the Rules of 1996 is not admissible to the petitioner. It has been submitted that as death of husband of the petitioner took place in the year 2004, therefore, Rule 268(K) of the Rules of 1951 shall not be applicable and case of the petitioner would be covered by Rule 109 of the Rules of 1996.

5. The issue in hand is no longer res-integra. This Court in the case of Smt. Santosh Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18258/2011 decided on 12.08.2025) has considered the similar facts where police official died in a road accident and his dependent was denied the benefit of special pension on account of the incident being not covered by the provisions of the Rule 109 of the Rules of 1996. After considering Rule 109 of the Rules of 1996, erstwhile Rules 268(1)

and 268(K) of the Rules of 1951, this Court held as under:

“5. Learned counsel