Allahabad High Court
Smt. Preeti Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 7 December, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20320 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Preeti Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Sr. Advocate,Vinod Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Petitioner's husband was in the employment of U.P. Police as Sub-Inspector and while on duty, he was died on 22.08.2010. A claim for payment of extraordinary pension under the Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1961'), has been raised and since an appropriate decision was not taken, as such, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rules of 1961 shall be applicable. It is also stated that the Rule 3 has been amended vide Notification dated 19th July, 1978 and the requirement of extra risk being essential for grant of extraordinary pension stands substituted with the requirement of death caused during the course of employment. Reliance has been placed upon a Government Order dated 19.8.1988 also which lays down the guidelines for payment of extraordinary pension. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 1298 of 2013. Rule 3 has been interpreted by the Division Bench in following words:-
"Now a plain reading of the rule indicates that the rules are applicable to police officers and employees who have died or are killed while fighting dacoits or armed offenders or while discharging any other duties. The learned Single Judge has referred to the judgment in Smt. Leelawati Yadav Vs State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 18920 of 2013) decided on 9th April 2013 where it was held that merely because an incumbent was in service and died in the course of service on account of illness, the case would not ipso facto fall within the zone of the special category. The point to be noted, in the present case, is that admittedly, the spouse of the appellant was according to the authorities killed in an accident while he was in the discharge of his duties. In fact, that is the basis on which the exgratia payment was sanctioned by the Senior Superintendent of Police. The fact that the accident took place when the husband of the appellant had been required to deliver an urgent communication at night to the Command House is not in question. Rule 3 is a beneficial provision and must receive a purposive interpretation. The expression "while discharging any other duties" indicates that there must be a proximate nexus between the cause of death and the discharge of duties. The fact that the death occurred when an employee was engaged in the police service is not sufficient. The death must be caused in the discharge of duties. The clauses which precede the residuary provision are not exhaustive.
In these circumstances, the rejection of the claim for extraordinary pension on that ground is unsustainable."
Perusal of the record would go to show that petitioner's claim for grant of extraordinary pension has not been examined in light of the relevant government orders as well as in light of the observations made by the Division Bench on 19.12.2013 in Special Appeal Defective No. 1298 of 2013. In that view of the matter, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
A mandamus is issued to the respondents to accord consideration to the petitioner's claim for grant of extraordinary pension keeping in view the applicable government orders as well as the observations made by the Division Bench, by passing a reasoned order within a period of four months, from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 7.12.2022
akverma
