Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1278 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Paras Kanwar

2012-05-15

ARUN MISHRA, SANGEET LODHA

body2012
Hon'ble LODHA, J.—This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 3.11.11 of the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent seeking directions to the appellants to compute the arrears of family pension payable with effect from the date of death of her husband i.e. 20.3.89 and for actual payment thereof, stands allowed. 2. The appeal filed is barred by limitation for 79 days, which is accompanied by an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application, this court is satisfied that the appellants had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The application is therefore, allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The respondent's husband, who was working with the appellants herein as Constable while discharging his duty died on 20.3.89 as a result of a motor vehicle accident occurred on 16.3.89. After the demise of her husband, the respondent was being paid only normal family pension and was not allowed 'special family pension' as per the provisions contained in Chapter XXIII-B of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (“RSR”). The grievance of the respondent was not redressed by the appellants herein despite representation made and therefore, she preferred the writ petition before this court for the relief claimed as aforesaid, which stands allowed by the learned Single by the order impugned. Hence, this appeal. 4. The stand of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that the respondent's case is not covered under the provisions of “Special Pensionary Awards” in terms of provisions of Rule 268-I of RSR inasmuch as, the respondent's husband has died in the road accident and was not killed while on duty as a result of enemy action. 5. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition as prayed for, relying upon a Division Bench decision of this court in Smt. Savita Yadav vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. C. Writ Petition No.1668/87) decided on 11.1.90 followed in other cases including that in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Smt. Urmila Devi & Ors: 1996(3) WLC (Raj.) 703 and Pappu Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors: 2009(2) WLC (Raj.) 158. 6. vs. Smt. Urmila Devi & Ors: 1996(3) WLC (Raj.) 703 and Pappu Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors: 2009(2) WLC (Raj.) 158. 6. In Savita Yadav's case (supra), a Division Bench of this court held that as regards Rule 268-I of RSR, 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 enemy action. Accordingly, the part of the sub-rule (ii) of Rule 268-I restricting the payment of special pension to the police personnel who are killed while on duty as a result of enemy action including action by paratroopers and infiltrators from Pakistan was struck down by the Division Bench of this court and Rule 268-J was read down by introducing the words “while discharging their duty” after the words “killed or died” so as to extend the benefits of special pension to all the police personnels who died while discharging their duty. 7. In yet another decision in Urmila Devi's case (supra), this court extended the benefit of special pension to the family members of the police personnel who died for the injuries sustained when the jeep wherein he was traveling met with an accident. 8. In view of the aforesaid decisions of this court , the claim of the respondent for the benefits of “Special Pensionary Awards” in terms of Rule 268-I cannot be disputed and therefore, the decision of the learned Single Judge in holding the respondent entitled for the award of special pension cannot be faulted with. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the decision in Savita Yadav's case was rendered by the Division Bench of this court on 11.1.90 whereas, the respondent's husband had died on 20.3.89 and therefore, she was not entitled for the benefit of special pension in terms of Rule 268-I of RSR. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the decision in Savita Yadav's case was rendered by the Division Bench of this court on 11.1.90 whereas, the respondent's husband had died on 20.3.89 and therefore, she was not entitled for the benefit of special pension in terms of Rule 268-I of RSR. 10. In considered opinion of this court, the part of the Rule 268-I restricting the benefits of special pension only to the police personnel who are killed while on duty as a result of enemy action having been struck down and the provisions of Rule 268-J having been read down by a Division Bench of this court as aforesaid, the benefits admissible under the provisions of Rule 268-I & 268-J of RSR as they exist today, has to be extended to the members of family of the deceased police personnel covered by the said Rules. 11. In view of the discussion above, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its intra court appellate jurisdiction. 12. In the result, this intra court appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed.