Allahabad High Court
Smt. Raj Kumari Yadav vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Home ... on 27 April, 2022
Author: Suneet Kumar
Bench: Suneet Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH A.F.R. Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6695 of 2016 Petitioner :- Smt. Raj Kumari Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Home Deptt.Govt.Of U.P. Lko.Andors Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rule 3 for ready reference is extracted:
**3&;g fu;ekoyh jkT;iky ds cuk;s fu;e ls fueaf=r gksus okys LFkk;h ;k vLFkk;h :i esa lsok;ksftr lHkh iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa vkSj deZpkfj;ksa ¼jktif=r vkSj vjktif=r nksuksa½ Ikj ykxw gksxh tks Mkdqvksa ;k l'kL= vijkf/k;ksa ;k fons'kh izfrjks/k;ksa ls yMus es ;k fdlh vU; drZC; dk ikyu djus ds nkSjku ekjs tk;s ;s ftudh e`R;q gks tk;sA** 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.
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.
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 shock caused due to electric leak. The injury suffered by the employee and consequently his death was in compliance of his duty in the course of his employment and not otherwise.
In the circumstances, the death of the petitioner would squarely fall under Rule 3 of Rules, 1975. The impugned order does not notice the entire Rule 3, in particular, "or in compliance of any other duty" which encompasses within its fold any act done by the official during duty.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Rajanna v. Union of India, 1995 Supp. (2) Supreme Court Cases 601, wherein, the Court held that in case a person is on duty and while going for official duty some injury is caused and the employee succumbs to injury, then he is also entitled for extraordinary pension. Similarly, in Smt. Noorjahan v. State of U.P. and others, [2003 (21) LCD 264], the Court observed that in case person dies because of accident at the time of going or coming back after official duty, such person shall be entitled for extraordinary pension. (Refer: Smt. Lilawati Devi versus State of U.P.1; Smt. Sushila Devi versus State of U.P.2) In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the deceased police official was duly deputed on a rescue mission duly recorded in the G.D. and as per the enquiry report. The deceased employee complied with directions and successfully rescued the trapped victims. In the course of complying the second leg of the direction that the victims are to be transported to the Trauma Centre, the deceased employee succumbed to the injury caused due to electric shock at the barrack. The death, in the circumstances occurred while the official was on duty complying the official orders. Petitioner is entitled to extraordinary pension being covered under Rule 3 of Rules, 1975.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.03.2015, passed by the first respondent, Principal Secretary Home Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow, is set aside and quashed. State-respondents are directed to compute and grant extraordinary pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 14.09.2012, within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the due amount from the due date till the payment is received.
Order Date :- 27.4.2022 K.K. Maurya