Smt. Saroj Kanwar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ... on 6 November, 2025

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Saroj Kanwar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ... on 6 November, 2025

1. The present writ petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction commanding the respondents to grant her the benefit of Special Pensionary Award under Chapter VII of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 ("the Rules of 1996"), consequent upon the demise of her husband, Late Shri Raju Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector, who lost his life while discharging official duties.

2. Succinctly stated, the petitioner's late husband, Shri Raju Singh, was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector at Police Station Sadar, District Pali, and was widely recognized for his diligence and devotion to duty. On 28.07.2016, while responding to an (Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 03:19:32 PM) (Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 06:39:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47972] (2 of 5) [CW-12368/2016] emergency call regarding a road accident near Ramasiya, he proceeded to the site accompanied by two other police personnel. Tragically, during the course of this official engagement, he met with a fatal accident en route to the hospital and succumbed to his injuries. The incident was duly recorded in the relevant FIR and Rojnamcha Report.

2.1. Despite the petitioner's applications and successive representations dated 31.08.2016 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Pali; the Director General of Police; and the Inspector General, Jodhpur Range, her request for grant of Special Pensionary Award was rejected vide order dated 23.09.2016. Instead, she was sanctioned only the regular family pension. Aggrieved thereby, she has preferred the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case squarely falls within the ambit of Chapter VII of the Rules of 1996, which entitles the family of a government servant who dies while performing official duties to a Special Pensionary Award. It was further urged that the issue stands conclusively settled by a catena of judicial precedents, inter alia:

a. Savita Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1668/1987, wherein the Division Bench struck down the restrictive expression "as a result of enemy action" and held that every government servant who dies in the discharge of duty is entitled to such benefit;

(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 03:19:32 PM) (Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 06:39:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47972] (3 of 5) [CW-12368/2016] b. Smt. Papu Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3087/1996, decided on 23.02.2008, reiterating the aforesaid principle;

c. Smt. Paras Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11423/2009, decided on 03.11.2011, where identical relief was granted;

d. State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Madhubala, Civil Appeal No.489/2018, decided on 20.03.2015, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view in Paras Kanwar; and e. Smt. Fatima v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Civil Writ Petition No.8036/2012, decided on 06.11.2013, wherein the Apex Court reaffirmed the same principle.

Placing reliance on these binding precedents, counsel submitted that the respondents' rejection of the petitioner's claim is patently arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, warranting immediate judicial intervention.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, while not disputing the factual circumstances surrounding the unfortunate demise of Late Shri Raju Singh, fairly conceded that the issue in question stands covered by the judgments rendered in Smt. Paras Kanwar (supra) and Madhubala (supra), and that the petitioner's case is on identical footing.

(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 03:19:32 PM) (Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 06:39:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47972] (4 of 5) [CW-12368/2016]

5. I have heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the material available on record with due circumspection. 5.1. It is an admitted position that Late Shri Raju Singh died while performing his official duties, an act that epitomized exemplary devotion and commitment to public service. The contemporaneous record unequivocally establishes that the incident occurred in the course of duty, thereby satisfying the statutory precondition for the grant of Special Pensionary Award. 5.2. The object of Rule 109 of the Rules of 1996 is to ensure financial security to the families of government servants who die in the line of duty. Being a beneficial provision, it warrants liberal and purposive interpretation to advance the legislative intent rather than frustrate it.

5.3. The jurisprudence on the subject is well-settled. The Division Bench in Savita Yadav (supra) extended the ambit of special pension to all cases of death during the discharge of official duty. The same view has been consistently reiterated in Smt. Papu Devi, Smt. Paras Kanwar, Madhubala, and Smt. Fatima (supra). The ratio of these decisions leaves no scope for ambiguity the entitlement to Special Pensionary Award is not contingent upon the nature of external circumstances but upon the factum of death while performing duty.

5.4. In the present case, even the respondents' counsel has candidly acknowledged that the facts and issues are (Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 03:19:32 PM) (Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 06:39:53 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47972] (5 of 5) [CW-12368/2016] indistinguishable from those in Paras Kanwar and Madhubala. Consequently, principles of judicial consistency and parity necessitate extension of the same relief to the petitioner. The denial of the Special Pensionary Award to the petitioner, despite clear entitlement and binding precedent, constitutes manifest arbitrariness and infringes Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to the Special Pensionary Award under Chapter VII of the Rules of 1996.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend to the petitioner all consequential benefits under the Special Pensionary Award, including arrears of pension, within a period of 60 days from the date of this order. In the event of default, the entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order until actual realization.

7. The stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

(FARJAND ALI),J 168-Mamta/-

(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 03:19:32 PM) (Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 06:39:53 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur