Allahabad High Court
Gyanwati Devi vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 24 October, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 ALLAHABAD 1, AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 1928, (2020) 138 ALL LR 509, (2020) 1 ADJ 404 (ALL), (2020) 1 ALL WC 805
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder, Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 7 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 33 of 2019 Appellant :- Gyanwati Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Bramh Narayan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder,J.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
[Per: Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder,J.] The instant Special Appeal arises in respect of a judgment and order dated 19th December, 2018, passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ A No. 27354 of 2018 (Smt. Gyanwati Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others). By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge proceeded to hold that the writ petition was misconceived and consequently dismissed the same for reasons stated therein.
This Special Appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner.
The records reveal that the writ petitioner's husband Anjani Kumar Tiwari was a police constable working with the Provincial Armed Constabulary (in short, P.A.C.). While on duty serving the 12th Battalion of P.A.C., Fatehpur, he suddenly fell ill on 13th January, 1993, and was hospitalised at Medical College Hallett Hospital, Kanpur, where he expired on 17th January, 1993. Since the late Anjani Kumar Tiwari had expired due to illness, his widow, being the writ petitioner, was not entitled to extraordinary pension. As such, the writ petitioner was granted family pension on 17th April, 1993, which is being received by her ever since that date.
Even after enjoying family pension for long twenty-five years, the writ petitioner, as widow of late Anjani Kumar Tiwari, filed a writ petition before a learned Single Judge of this Court in the year 2018. Her claim essentially was for grant of extraordinary pension. The claim itself rests upon the demise of the late Anjani Kumar Tiwari on 17th January, 1993, after suffering a brief illness, post-heart-attack on 13th January, 1993.
The learned Single Judge did not even go into the question of maintainability of a writ petition after a gap of 25 (twenty-five) years. Rather, the learned Single Judge went into the moot question, i.e., whether the writ petitioner could have been given benefit of grant of extraordinary pension under Rule 3 of the U. P. Police (Extraordinary Pension) (First Amendment) Rules, 1975. (hereinafter referred to as the "1975 Rules") For convenience, the impugned judgment and order is set out hereinbelow in its entirety:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
This petition has been preferred for the grant of extraordinary pension. The claim itself rests upon the demise of the husband of the petitioner who suffered a heart attack in 1993. The grant of extraordinary pension which is governed by the Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) (First Amendment) Rules,1975, provides for the release of such pension in the following circumstances:
"3. यह नियमावली राज्यपाल के बताये नियम से नियंत्रित होने वाले स्थायी या अस्थायी रूप से सेवायोजित सभी पुलिस अधिकारियों और कर्मचारियों (राजपत्रित और अराजपत्रित दोनों) पर लागू होगी जो डाकुओं या सशस्त्र अपराधियों या विदेशी प्रतिरोधियों से लड़ने में या किसी अन्य कर्त्तव्यों का पालन करने के दौरान मारे जायं या जिनकी मृत्यु हो जायI"
The mere fact that the petitioner's husband suffered a heart attack would clearly not fall within the ambit of Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules. The Death is not shown to be attributable to the discharge of any official function or duty.
The writ petition is misconceived and is consequently dismissed."
A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules is applicable only in respect of those contingencies which have been spelt out in Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules. They are as follows:
"...जो डाकुओं या सशस्त्र अपराधियों या विदेशी प्रतिरोधियों से लड़ने में या किसी अन्य कर्त्तव्यों का पालन करने के दौरान मारे जायं या जिनकी मृत्यु हो जायI"
English translation:-
"...whose death have been caused or who have died while fighting with dacoits or armed criminals or foreign insurgents or while performing other duty."
The question is whether the writ petitioner's late husband's death fell within any of the categories of fatal situations/contingencies as enumerated above. The first three fatal situations/contingencies as stated in Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules, are those who are killed in action while fighting with dacoits, armed criminals or foreign insurgents. The other category, "...या किसी अन्य कर्त्तव्यों का पालन करने के दौरान मारे जायं या जिनकी मृत्यु हो जाय"; English translation:- "...whose death have been caused or who have died while performing any other duty.", simply cannot be read in isolation of the first three categories of fatal situations/contingencies and has to be necessarily read on the construction canon of ejusdem generis.
The reason is, when a general word or phrase follows a list of specifics, the general word or phrase will be interpreted to include only items of the same class as those already listed. In the instant case, the listed category/class includes only those killed in action while fighting dacoits or armed criminals or foreign insurgents. As such, the death of appellant/writ petitioner's late husband due to illness following a heart attack which he suffered on 13th January, 1993, while on duty, cannot be in any manner remotely relatable to the listed category/class of fatal situations/contingencies as stated in Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules.
For the purpose of grant of extraordinary pension under Rule 3 of 1975 Rules, death has to result directly from a fatal situation/contingency faced by the police personnel concerned in the line of duty in a hostile environment akin to the listed category/class. The appellant/writ petitioner's husband may have died on duty, but his death was due to natural causes and certainly not due to a fatal situation/contingency faced by a police personnel in the line of duty in a hostile environment akin to the listed category/class as specified in Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules.
If we proceed to give such a wide interpretation to Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules -- in the manner as submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant -- there would perhaps be no necessity of Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules to specify the three contingencies/fatal situations required for the purpose of grant of extraordinary pension. The legislature, in its wisdom, would have simply stated that any death occurring during the course of duty would entitle the family of the concerned police personnel to claim extraordinary pension in terms of the Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules. That possibly could not have been the intention of the legislature by any stretch of imagination in the facts of the instant case.
As such, we direct the concerned authority of the State to enforce Rule 3 of the Rules of 1975 strictly with an even hand and not allow similar claims to surface or grant such claims surreptitiously.
The Special Appeal stands dismissed subject to observations made hereinabove.
Copy of this order shall be served upon learned Chief Standing Counsel.
Order Date :- 24.10.2019 Dhananjai (Biswanath Somadder,J.) (Ajay Bhanot,J.)