Widow of Police Officer entitled for extraordinary pension under Rule 3 of U.P. Police Extraordinary Pension Rules: Uttarakhand High Court
The petitioner’s husband was not discharging his duty simplicitor. In fact, he was risking his life in order to tackle the menace caused by the forest smugglers, or poachers. Thus, it was a special duty, a dangerous task, performed by the petitioner’s husband. This was said in the case of State of Uttarakhand v Smt. Preeti Chand [SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 124 of 2021] by Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Alok Kumar Verma in Uttarakhand High Court.
The facts of the case date back to 25.09.2013 when the petitioners husband, a sub inspector died while being on duty. Under the Rule 3, Sub Rule (3) of U.P. Police Extraordinary Pension Rules, 1961 the petitioner is certainly entitled to receive the extraordinary pension. However, despite the repeated recommendations both by Police Headquarter and by Accountant General, State rejected the petitioner’s claim. Left with no other option, the petitioner approached before the Court by filing the writ petition
The State of Uttarakhand contended that the Government order dated 19.08.1988 regarding Rule 3 of the U.P. Police Extraordinary Pension Rules, 1961 does not entail the work assigned to the petitioner’s husband .Therefore, the petitioner’s case is not covered under the Rules. Secondly, they contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to notice the Government Order dated 19.08.1988.
On the other hand, the petitioner contends that Rule 3 of the U.P. Police Extraordinary Pension Rules, 1961 has used residuary words, namely, “any other action in which the police personnel is killed”. Moreover, these residuary words have been defined by the Government Order dated 19.08.1988. According to them, the very first category i.e. “while fifing dacoit or any anti-social elements” certainly covers the case of the petitioner’s husband. Secondly, they contended that the petitioner’s husband was working for SOG, which was a special task force created for tackling the problems created by forest smugglers and poachers. Therefore, the State has illegally rejected the claim for granting the extraordinary pension to the petitioner.
The bench after hearing the contentions of the parties, examining the records, submitted by the parties, and perusing the impugned judgment, observed that that “The Government Order dated 19.08.1988, clearly mentions the category of dacoits and anti-social elements. Any police personnel while fighting the dacoits and antisocial elements is covered by these category. Obviously, the forest smugglers and poachers do fall under the category of anti-social elements. As mentioned above on 25.09.2013, the petitioner’s husband was on special duty to control the anti-social elements; while returning from discharging his duties, the petitioners husband met his death. Thus, naturally, the petitioner’s claim for receiving extraordinary pension is clearly covered both by Rule 3 of the Rules, and by Government Order dated 19.08.1988”. Hence, the Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.