Learned counsel for the v. State of Rajasthan

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Director General, Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur. Additional Director, Pension And Pensioners Department, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

4. Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur Rural, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Sohan Kumawat Mr. Shailendra Balwada For Respondent(s) : Ms. Karishma Soni for Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 12/08/2025

1. Petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 25.08.2011 issued by the respondents denying him Special Pension on account of death of her husband. Petitioner has further prayed for granting her Special Pension under Rule 268(1) of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 along with payment of arrears.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner Late Shri Rohitashava Kumar was posted as Constable in Rajasthan Police Department. On 11.12.2010, while he was performing his duties of road accident that occurred while he was on duty. After his death, although regular pension and other benefits have been given to the petitioner, yet Special Pension [2025:RJ-JP:31399] (2 of 5) [CW-18258/2011] which is admissible as per Rule 109 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 has not been provided.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Rule 109 of the Rules of 1996 can be invoked only in special circumstances mentioned in the Rule itself. Although, the petitioner was on duty when the said accident took place, yet mere road accident is not covered for sanctioning Special Pension under Rule 109 of the Pension Rules, 1996 hence, the respondent- Department has committed no mistake in denying Special Pension to the petitioner.

4. I have heard rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Rekha Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10091/2009) decided on 07.12.2010 wherein Co- ordinate Bench of this Court interpreted Rule 268(1) of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Provisions of 268(1) are pari materia to Rule 109 of the Rules of 1996. The Co-ordinate Bench while interpreting the Rules has observed in the following manner:- "The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a Division Bench of this Court DBCWP No.1668/1987 decided on 11.01.1990 (Savita Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:31399] (3 of 5) [CW-18258/2011] 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. 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 Rajasthan Service Rules and the Rule 268-J is read down by introducing the work "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 Rules 268-I and the Rule 268-J." 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. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in the position to dispute the fact the Division Bench in D.B. C.W.P. No. 1668/1987 (supra) has already struck down the rule 268-I 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-I by inclusion of the words "kill or die" while discharging their duties." In view of the Division Bench Judgment aforesaid, the petitioner is certainly entitled for receiving special pension, as her husband too died while traveling 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(I) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. No order as to costs. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon he judgment of

6. Ms. Pappu Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3087/1996) in which after considering the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Savita Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1668/1987). Following observations have been made:

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the Division Bench of this Court in Savita Devi Yadav's case (supra) has held that a police personnel, who dies or is killed “while on duty” irrespective of the circumstances whether an enemy action or otherwise or in a simple investigation duty in clause (2) of Rule 268-I, have to be treated at per and a police personnel dying or being [2025:RJ-JP:31399] (4 of 5) [CW-18258/2011] killed while doing his duty, his family is entitled to special pension under Rule 268 K of RSR, then it is not permissible for the respondent State to contend in the present case that the case of the petitioner's husband who died in an accident in the mid night between 16.12.1991 and 17.12.1997 while he was assigned a particular duty to go on a particular site as per Exhibit 1 Rojnamcha entry, that the petitioner would not be entitled to special pensionary award. It appears that the reasoning given by the Division Bench was with specific observation and premise of treating the police personnels while on duty and those while not on duty only as the permissible classifications for the purpose of grant of normal pension or special pension. The first category of police personnels dying or being killed while on duty were entitled to special pensionary Awards and others who died while not on duty were entitled to normal or half of the special pension under the relevant Rules. It is true that the special circumstances have been enumerated in favour clauses of Section 268-I of RSR namely encounter with dacoits in clause (i) enemy action in clause (ii) agitation-riots in clause (iii) raids by exercise party in clause (iv) and Rule 268-J also refers to the words “under any of the circumstances mentioned in the relevant clauses of Rules 268-I” to make Chapter XXII-B itself applicable for grant of special pensions but in view of the said classification as far as clause (ii) is concerned having been struck down by the Division Bench of this Court, it appears to the Court that the classification permissible is only between “while on duty” and “while not on duty”. Since the Division Bench clearly stated in its judgment that irrespective of enemy action, if a police personnel dies while on duty, both have to be treated as same, therefore, the special words relating to special circumstances contained in clause (ii) of Rule 268-I were struck down by the Division Bench. Likewise irrespective of special circumstances enumerated in other clauses of Rule 268-I in clause (i), (iii) and (iv) also, a police personnel dying or being killed while on duty would be entitled special pension under Chapter XXIII-B Rule 268-K of RSR. The aforesaid conclusion by this Court appears to be the most reasonable conclusion in view of the Division Bench judgment which is binding on this Court in Single Bench. It can hardly be disputed and controverted by the learned counsel for the State that the husband of the petitioner, ASI Shankar Lal died while on duty. Even though he died in a road accident, as would be clear from the Rojnamcha entries in Exhibit 1, it cannot be disputed nor it has been done so in the reply filed by the respondents State that at that particular moment the husband of the petitioner, ASI Shankar Lal was on duty having been assigned the same at 11:30 PM on 16.12.1991 vide entry No. 675 in Exhibit 1. Since the [2025:RJ-JP:31399] (5 of 5) [CW-18258/2011] facts are not much in dispute, this Court has reason to draw the conclusion that the husband of the petitioner died while on duty and, therefore, the case of the petitioner would fall within the ambit and scope of Rule 268 I read with Rule 268-J entitling her to special pensionary benefits in terms of Rule 268-K of RSR.

9. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to give the arrears of pension computing the same under Rule 268-K of the Act with effect from the date of death of the husband of the petitioner on 17.12.1991 till date within a period of 3 months from today. The said arrears will bear interest at the rate of 12% per annum, if not paid within three months from today. The petitioner shall be further entitled to regular special pension as aforesaid on month to month basis in accordance with Rules 268-K at the rate of monthly emoluments which the deceased ASI Shankar Lal was drawing at the time of his death, with further revision in pay scale and other benefits, had he remained in service till his age of superannuation.

7. As stated hereinabove provisions of Rule 268-I are almost similar to Rule 109 of the Rules of 1996, therefore, the ratio given in the aforesaid cases would also apply in the instant case and the benefit of Special Pension would be admissible to the petitioner by interpreting Rule 109 by including the words "kill or die" while discharging their duties.

8. Accordingly, in the light of aforesaid judgment, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Petitioner is entitled for receiving Special Pension, as her husband also died while discharging his official duties in a road accident. The respondents are directed to release Special Pension in favour of the petitioner as per Rule 109 of the Rules of 1996 within a period of three months from today, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. Neeru/26 (ANAND SHARMA),J