Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Meera Devi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:47289) on 3 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:47289]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6273/2019
Meera Devi W/o Late Shree Laxman Singh (A.s.i.), Aged About
50 Years, R/o Village Fevdi Guwar, Post Barar, Tehsil Bhim,
District Rajsamand, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The
Government Department Of Home Affairs, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Directorate Of Pension And Pensioenrs
Welfare, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Prasad Pareek
Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati
Mr. Shailendra Kumar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
03/11/2025
1. The writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner
seeking the following prayers:-
"(i) By way of an appropriate order, writ, direction the
respondents may be directed to re-determine, revise
and pay all arrears of pension and other benefits with
interest from the date of the death of petitioner's
husband.
(ii) By way of an appropriate order, writ, direction the
respondents may be directed to decide the
representation of the petitioner.
(iii) Any other appropriate writ order or direction, which
this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 01:19:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47289] (2 of 8) [CW-6273/2019]
circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in the
favour of the petitioner.
(iv) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be
awarded to the petitioners."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved
in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed
by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Bhanwar
Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 2591/2014, decided on 18.07.2014, and the said
judgment is reproduced hereinunder:-
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely
covered by a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt.
Pappu Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in
2009 (2) WLC (Raj.) 158 and in the case of Smt. Paras
Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP
No.11423/2009 decided on 03.11.2009) decided by a
coordinate bench of this court, a copy whereof has been
placed on record as Annex.3. The matter is regarding
payment of special pension payable to the widow of the
employees of the Police Department in terms of Rule 268-I
of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 under Chapter 23B.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a
position to seriously dispute this position.
3. The relevant extract of the judgment of the
coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Paras
Kanwar (supra) referring to earlier judgment rendered in
the case of Smt. Pappu Devi (supra) delivered by this
Court, is quoted herein below for ready reference: -
"The learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that with the consistent decisions of this Court, the
issue is no more res-integra that the relevant provisions
as contained in Chapter XXIII-B, ought to be read as
including the case of the police personnel who died
while discharging the duty as per the dictum in Smt.
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 01:19:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47289] (3 of 8) [CW-6273/2019]
Savita Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan (DBCWP
No.1668/1987), decided on 11.01.1990 that has been
followed in other cases including that in State of
Rajasthan & Ors Vs. Smt. Urmila Devi & Ors : 1996 (3)
WLC (Raj.) 703 and in Smt. Pappu Devi Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors : 2009(2) WLC (Raj.) 158. The learned
counsel for the respondents on the other hand
submitted that some of the matters are pending in
appeal before the Division Bench of this Court.
As at present, the position of law stands as laid
down in Smt. Savita Yadav (supra) and followed in
different decisions as noted above. In Savita Yadav's
case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court said:
"By this writ petition the petitioner seeks to
strike down the words "as a result of enemy action
including action by paratroopers and infiltrators from
Pakistan" occurring in Rule 268 I of the Rajasthan
Service Rules.
The petitioner's case is that her husband Shri
Nirmal Singh was a post graduate and was appointed
as Sub Inspector of Police. He was thirty years of age
at the time of his death. He was posted in Udai Mandir
Police Station, Jodhpur. He proceeded to the premises
of one Shri Surat Singh Yadav to investigate a case
alongwith Assistant Superintendent of Police Shri
A.K.Arora, I.P.S. The police party of which Nirmal Singh
was a member went underground of the premises of
Shri Surat Singh. There some explosion took place
resulting into the death of the petitioner's husband Shri
Nirmal Singh. The petitioner's case is that the benefit of
pension be made available to the petitioner as well as
her husband died while he was on duty. Under Rule
268 I sub-rule (ii) the benefit is available to police
personnel whether in regular or irregular units including
R.A.C. Upto the rank of Superintendent of Police (other
than I.P.S. Officers) and Class IV servants, followers
and other noncombatant staff attached to the police
force, who are killed while on duty as a result of enemy
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 01:19:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47289] (4 of 8) [CW-6273/2019]
action including action by paratroopers and infiltrators
from Pakistan. The petitioner's case as contended by
the counsel for the petitioner is that this classification
excluding police personnel who die on duty but not as a
result of enemy action is bad and there can be no
justification for such exclusion. The classification is an
arbitrary classification so this part of the Rule that it
applies only to those who die while on duty as a result
of enemy action including action by paratroopers and
infiltrators from Pakistan deserves to be struck down.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that
the provision contained in Rule 268 J is also confined to
death as a result of injury sustained in encounter with
dacoits or as a result of enemy action. It does not
contemplate death of a police personnel while
discharging his duty other than the duty in encounter
with dacoits or duty in enemy action. This provision
should also be made applicable to those police
personnel as well who are killed or die while
discharging their duty, so this provision should be read
down to include the police personnel who while in
service on or after the 5 th August, 1965 are killed or die
while discharging their duty.
We find force in the submissions with respect to
Rule 268 I and Rule 268 J. As regards Rule 268 I no
distinction can be made when a police personnel is
killed while on duty and when a police personnel is
killed while on duty as a result of enemy action. Both
die on duty so the benefit should be given to both
whether they die on duty as a result of enemy action or
they simply die while discharging duty without any
enemy action. The said part of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 268
I appears to be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution and therefore that deserves to be struck
down. So far as Rule 268 J is concerned that has to be
read down so as to include police personnel who are
killed or die while discharging their duty, so after the
words 'killed or die' 'while discharging their duty'
should be read.
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 01:19:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47289] (5 of 8) [CW-6273/2019]
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. This
part of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 268 I "as a result of enemy
action including action by paratroopers and infiltrators
from Pakistan" is struck down and the consequence
thereof is the petitioner would be entitled to benefits as
provided in Rule 268 I of the Raj. Service Rules and the
Rule 268 J is read down by introducing the words
"while discharging their duty" after the words "killed or
die". The State Government is, therefore, directed to
give to the petitioner benefits as a result of striking
down and reading down the Rule 268 I and the Rule
268 J."
Following the said decision, in Smt. Urmila Devi's
case (supra) another Division Bench of this Court, in a
case of more or less akin nature where a police
personnel traveling in a police jeep died for the injuries
sustained when the jeep met with the accident,
directed that the benefit of special provisions enshrined
in Chapter XXIII-B of RSR shall be applicable; and the
respondents were directed to revise the family pension
of the family members of those police personnels, who
may or may not have approached the appellants or the
Court but died while discharging their official duties, on
or after 05.08.1965. Striking the same note in Papu
Devi's case (supra), a co-ordinate Bench again
accepted the claim of the wife of the police personnel
who died in accident that occurred while he was on
duty and also issued directions for similar treatment in
relation to the similarly situated persons.
For the view taken and applied by this Court in the
decisions aforesaid, this Court finds no reason that the
benefit of "Special Pensionary Awards" under Chapter
XXIII-B of RSR would not be available to the petitioner
whose husband was working as a police constable and
died while on duty.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, this writ
petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 01:19:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47289] (6 of 8) [CW-6273/2019]
accord the benefits per Chapter XXIII-B of RSR to the
petitioner and to make payment of the amount payable
therefor without delay. It shall be required of the
respondents to make actual payment of the arrears
within 30 days from today and to settle the pensionary
benefits of the petitioner for the future accordingly.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is
also observed that in case the respondents fail to make
the requisite payment within 30 days from today to the
petitioner, the entire payment shall carry interest, @
9% per annum from the date of this order. Having
regard to the circumstances, there shall be no order as
to costs.
4. The undisputed fact is that on 16.03.1989, the
Constable Nathu Singh, who was posted at Police Station-
Sadari, District: Pali, was asked to go for some investigation
along-with six police personnel and two accused persons.
However, when they were going in the police jeep, the said
jeep met with an accident and on account of injuries
sustained by the petitioner, he unfortunately expired on
30.04.1989 while discharging the officials duties. On
account of the said death while discharging the duties, the
special pension is payable to the family of the deceased
Government servant according to Rule 268-I of the
Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 under Chapter 23B, besides
the family pension. The controversy involved in the present
case is covered by the judgments of this Court, therefore,
the present writ petition also deserves to be disposed of in
the same terms.
6. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in the
same terms. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the
concerned parties forthwith.
3. The same issue has further been approved by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan and
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 01:19:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47289] (7 of 8) [CW-6273/2019]
Ors. Vs. Ms. Madhu Bala in Civil Appeal No.489 of 2018
decided on 20.03.2025.
4. The respondents, while not disputing the factual aspects
regarding the service and unfortunate death of the
petitioner's husband, submit that the death occurred in a
road accident while on duty and not as a result of any
operational or enemy action; hence, it does not fall within
the ambit of Rule 268(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules,
1951 or Rule 109 of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996. As
clarified by the Police Directorate circular dated 24.06.2013,
special pension is admissible only in cases of death arising
from operational or enemy action. The petitioner has already
been granted all admissible benefits, including family
pension, ex-gratia, provident fund, and other dues.
Therefore, the claim for special pension is misconceived, not
covered under the Rules, and the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record as well as gone through the
judgment passed in the case of Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar v.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Supra), The State of Rajasthan
and Ors. Vs. Ms. Madhu Bala (Supra) and Smt. Paras
Kanwar Vs. State & Ors. (Supra).
6. In light of the enunciation made by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court, it is now no
more res integra that, in certain circumstances, special
pensionary benefits should be awarded. In view of the
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 01:19:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47289] (8 of 8) [CW-6273/2019]
above, the petition is allowed in the same terms and
conditions as made in the cases referred (supra).
7. The respondents are directed to re-determine, revise and
pay all arrears of pension and other benefits with interest
from the date of the death of petitioner's wife including the
grant of consequential benefits and financial emoluments as
admissible under law in light of the judgment referred
(supra).
8. All pending applications shall stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
119-Samvedana/-
(Uploaded on 07/11/2025 at 01:19:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
