Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2027 (RAJ)

Rekha v. State of Rajasthan

2010-12-07

GOVIND MATHUR

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, widow of Late Shri Jitendra Singh, by this petition for writ is claiming a direction for respondents to release her special pension as per Rule 268(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short 'the Rules of 1951' hereinafter). 2. In brief, facts of the case are that Shir Jitendra Singh, husband of the petitioner died on 30.11.2006 while travelling in Bus No.RJ-22-P-1390 for official purpose. The petitioner, accordingly, claimed for special pension as per provision of Rule 268(1) of the Rules of 1951. Rule 268(1) of the Rules of 1951 reads as follow:- "268.I. Applicability.-This Chapter shall apply to the following categories of Government servants on pensionable establishment whether temporary or permanent who are in service on the 5lh day of August, 1965 or who enter service on or after that date - (i) "Police personnel, whether in Regular or Irregular Units including R.A.C. up to the rank of Commandant and Superintendent of Police (other than I.P.S. Officers) who die as a result of encounter with dacoits, (ii) Police personnel, whether in Regular or Irregular Units including R.A.C. up to the rank of Superintendent of Police (other than I.P.S. Officers) and Class IV servants followers and other non-combatant staff attached to the Police Force, who are killed while on duty as a result of enemy action (including action by paratroopers and infiltrators from Pakistan). [(iii) Police personnel, whether in regular or Irregular units including R.A.C. up to the rank of Commandant and Superintendent of Police (other than I.P.S. Officers) who die as a result of encounter with criminals or in the course of confrontation with mobs and crowds during agitation-riot or civil commotion or communal disturbances etc.] [(iv) Personnel of Preventive Branch of the Excise Department upto the rank of excise Officer (Preventive) who are killed or die as a result of injury sustained while undertaking raids]" 3. The claim of the petitioner was denied by the respondents on the count that Shri Jitendra Singh died as a consequent to an accident and was not killed while on duty, as result of enemy action including action by paratroopers and infiltrators from Pakistan. 4. The claim of the petitioner was denied by the respondents on the count that Shri Jitendra Singh died as a consequent to an accident and was not killed while on duty, as result of enemy action including action by paratroopers and infiltrators from Pakistan. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a Division Bench of this Court in Savita Yadav v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., DBCWP No. 1668/1987 decided on 11.01.1990 has already struck down the provision aforesaid to the extent that restricts the grant of special pension to the persons killed while on duty as a result of enemy action. The relevant portion of the judgment referred above reads as follow:- "We find force in the submissions with respect of 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 duly should be read. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. This part of sub-rule (ii) of Ride 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 1 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and the Rule 268-J. is read down by introducing the work "while discharging or die". The State Government is, therefore, directed to give to the petitioner benefits as a result of striking down and reading down the Rules 268-I and the Rule 268-J." 5. It is asserted that in view' of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, the petitioner is entitled for special pension as her husband died while on duty. 6. The State Government is, therefore, directed to give to the petitioner benefits as a result of striking down and reading down the Rules 268-I and the Rule 268-J." 5. It is asserted that in view' of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, the petitioner is entitled for special pension as her husband died while on duty. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in the position to dispute the fact that the Division Bench in DBCWP No. 1668/1987 (supra) has already struck down the Rule 268(1) to the extent that restricts for grant of special pension to the police personnel killed as a result of enemy action and further directed to read Rule 268(1) by inclusion of the words "killed or die while discharging their duties". 7. In view' of the Division Bench Judgment aforesaid, the petitioner is certainly entitled for receiving special pension, as her husband too died while travelling for official purpose and he was then on official duty. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to release special pension as per provisions of Section 268(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. No Order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******