Allahabad High Court
Smt. Savitri vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. on 16 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 535 of 2017 Petitioner :- Smt. Savitri Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhole Ram Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner was working as Constable in police and on 6.7.2011 husband of the petitioner was sent on government duty for service of warrant in a criminal case. The husband of the petitioner suffered train accident and died between Piparsand and Harauni station. The respondent by order dated 20.3.2012 sanctioned the extraordinary pension on the death of the deceased employee in favour of the petitioner. In pursuance to the order dated 20.3.2012, calculation of pension was also prepared, which is filed at Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. The petitioner was not paid the pension in pursuance to the aforesaid sanction and as such, by representation dated 10.1.2013, the petitioner represented before respondent authority for release of the extraordinary pension as granted earlier. On the aforesaid, a report was submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow to the State Government certifying that the petitioner's husband was on government duty for service of summon/warrant in criminal case when he died in a train accident. The report in respect of the same was sent to the State Government on 8.10.2013. The respondent No.4 threafter by communication dated 24.9.2015 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for extraordinary pension as the petitioner does not come within the ambit of Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1961/1975.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner was on duty when the aforesaid incident has taken place and the same has been duly certified by the respondent No.4 by his report dated 8.10.2013. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 24.9.2015 does not specify any reason as to why the extraordinary pension of the petitioner has been denied. The only ground stated in the impugned order is that the petitioner does not come within the ambit of Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1961.
4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the extraordinary pension has not been awarded to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has died in train accident and has not died while catching any criminal and as such, the Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1961 are not applicable as per the impugned order. He has relied upon Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1961, to submit that only police personnel who have entered into confrontation with the criminal, are being awarded extraordinary pension.
5. It is to be noted that the husband of the petitioner was constable in police and on 6.7.2011 was sent on duty to Allahabad for service of warrant in criminal case. However in transit due to train accident, he expired and the aforesaid fact that the husband of the petitioner was on duty has been duly certified by the respondent No.4 by his report dated 8.10.2013. It is, therefore, not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner when he suffered an accident and has died, was on duty for service of summon. The claim for extraordinary pension is governed by the Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1961. The Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules is quoted hereunder:
"3. यह नियमावली राज्यपाल के बनाये नियम से नियंत्रित होने वाले स्थायी या अस्थायी रूप से सेवायोजित सभी पुलिस अधिकारियों और कर्मचारियों (राजपत्रित और अराजपत्रित दोनों) पर लागू होंगी, जो डाकुओं या सशस्त्र अपराधियों या विदेशी प्रतिरोधियों से लड़ने में या किसी अन्य कर्त्तव्यों का पालन करने के दौरान मारे जायें या जिनकी मृत्यु हो जाये।
प्रतिबन्ध यह है कि ऐसे पुलिस कर्मचारी के परिवार को जिसे इस नियमावली के अधीन अभिनिर्णय दिया गया हो, उत्तर प्रदेश सिविल सर्विसेज (एस्कट्रा आर्डिनरी पेंशन) रूल्स के अधीन कोई अभिनिर्णय नहीं दिया जायेगा और न यू०पी० लिबरलाज्ड पेंशन रूल्स, 1961 अथवा यू०पी० रिटायरमेंट बेनीफिट रूल्स, 1961 के अधीन कोई पारिवारिक पेंशन/आनुतोषिक और न यू०पी० कन्ट्रीब्यूटरी पेंशन प्राविडेन्ट फण्ड रूल्स के अधीन सरकारी अंशदान दिया जायेगा।"
6. A perusal of the aforesaid Rules would demonstrate that any police personnel who died while on duty would be entitled to avail the Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1961.
7. In the present case, the police personnel i.e. husband of the petitioner has died while on duty, which is not in dispute between the parties. The impugned order although record the conclusion that the Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1961 are not applicable, however, reason in the impugned order are missing as to how the Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1961 are not applicable on petitioner's husband, specifically when the husband of the petitioner was on duty at the time of his death. The reasons are foundation of any decision. Once the foundation of the case is missing then the order impugned is bad in law.
8. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 24.09.2015 passed by respondent No.4-Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent authority to decide the claim for extraordinary pension of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. While passing the order, the respondent shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall also take into consideration the earlier order dated 20.3.2012 passed by the Finance Controller U.P. Police Headquarter, Allahabad and report dated 8.10.2013 of respondent No.4.
9. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 16.11.2022 D. Tamang