Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Savitri Rai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 March, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 30th OF MARCH, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 4134 of 2018
Between:-
SMT. SAVITRI RAI W/O LATE MAHENDRA RAI
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O. WAR NO./ 25,
MATESHWARI COLONY BARAIPURA,
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DEVESH BHOJNE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL HOME GUARD, DISTT.
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE DIVISIONAL COMMANDANT HOME GUARDS
DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE DISTRICT COMMANDANT HOME GAURAD,
DISTT-CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SWATI ASEEM GEORGE, PANEL LAWYER)
This petition has come up for hearing on admission on this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding respondents to grant extraordinary family pension to the
petitioner along with all other terminal dues with arrears along with interest @ 15%
from the date of entitlement till the amount which actually paid to the petitioner.
2. Shri Devesh Bhojne, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that
as per Annexure-P/6, petitioner's husband Lance Naik No.185 Mahendra Rai
presented himself in the evening on 09/07/2016 at Police Station, Mohiljhir for
wireless duty. Mahendra Rai died on the same day due to heart-attack, therefore, it
Signature Not
SAN
Verified is submitted that in terms of the provisions contained in M.P. Civil Services
Digitally signed by
TULSA SINGH (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1963'),
Date: 2022.03.31
10:28:14 IST
petitioner is entitled to grant of pension.
It is submitted that Rule-3(1)(i) reads as under :
"3. For the purpose of these rules, unless there is anything
repugnant in the subject or context :-
(1) (accident") means -
(i) a suddent and unavoidable mishap."
3. It is submitted that since death of petitioner's husband occurred due
to unavoidable and sudden mishap, therefore, petitioner is entitled to grant of
pension in terms of these rules.
4. Smt. Swati Aseem George, learned Panel Lawyer, in her turn,
submits that respondent/State has filed a return along with they have enclosed copy
of memo dated 13/03/2000 (Annexure-R/1) which clearly provides that provisions
of Rule 3(1)(i) of the Rules of 1963 will be attracted in case of emergency and
unavoidable mishap. Husband of the petitioner did not die under any of these
conditions as is certified by the doctors who performed post-mortem, report of
which is available on record as Annexure-P/5, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to
invoke the provisions of Rules of 1963.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record as well as provisions contained in the rules of 1963, it is evident that firstly
petitioner's husband was posted at Police Station, Mohiljhir on 09/07/2016 and he
had attended that office in the evening of 09/07/2016. It is not mentioned either in
the post-mortem report or on any other document as to at what time petitioner's
husband sustained heart-attack. It is evident that death of petitioner's husband, on
account of heart-attack, was of his routine illness and was not on account of any
accident as defined in Rule 3(1) of the Rules of 1963.
6. Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench
of this case in the case of Sarita Richhariya Vs. State of M.P.) decided on
21/08/2017 is misplaced inasmuch as in that case husband of the petitioner was
on duty and while on duty he had met with an accident and had expired, therefore,
facts of that case being different, are not applicable in the facts and circumstances
of the present case. As far as circular dated 13/3/2000 is concerned, it
categorically provides that provisions of Rules of 1963 can be invoked only in
case "vkdfLed rFkk vifjgkfjd foifRr". Petitioner has failed to substantiate that there
was any "vkdfLed rFkk vifjgkfjd foifRr", as a result of which, petitioner's husband
died. 'Injury' is defined in sub-rule (5) of Rule-3 and "special risk" is defined in
sub-rule-(8) of Rule -3 of the Rules of 1963.
7. A conjoint reading of definition of 'injury' and 'special risk' when
taken into consideration, then it is evident that there is no medical evidence to
substantiate that petitioner's husband sustained heart-attack on account of any
'special risk' attached to his duties where he had returned on the fateful day in the
evening itself. Therefore, petitioner has failed to bring out a case within four
corners of the provisions contained in Rules of 1963 so also government circular
dated 13/03/2000.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
