The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an appeal directed against the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the Single Judge, whereby the petitioner sought extraordinary pension under Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1961 (‘the Rules’) has been dismissed.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by Smt Poonam Tyagi.
The petition was filed by the appellant aggrieved of the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by Principal Secretary, Home Department, UP whereby the claim for grant of extraordinary pension under the Rules was rejected, inter alia, on the ground that as in the viscera examination report of appellant’s husband, cause of death was found poisoning, under the Rules, extraordinary pension was not payable.
It was indicated in the petition that husband of the appellant, Ashok Kumar Tyagi, was working as Sub-Inspector in Railway Police and was posted under the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Moradabad.
On 24.10.2001, while performing the duties, he died and considering the fact that he died on duty, an application was filed for grant of extraordinary pension.
It was submitted that cause of death of appellant’s husband was got inquired into by Superintendent of Police, Railways wherein a report dated 06.12.2001 was submitted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Railways, Bareilly indicating that husband of the appellant, while conducting investigation in case under Section 4/25 of Arms Act had gone to GRP Station, Bhojipura at around 4.30 p.m and had subsequently departed for police station GRP, Bareilly City.
He reached Railway Station, Izzatnagar at around 9.30, when he was about to leave for home he suddenly fell ill and immediately thereafter other Head Constables took him to his official residence where his condition deteriorated and he was taken to Mission Hospital in Bareilly where it was recorded that he has been ‘brought dead’. The viscera report dated 02.02.2002 indicated ‘Aluminum Phosphide’, however on an objection made, a second viscera report was obtained on 27.11.2002, wherein the report indicated ‘Ethyl Alcohol Poison’.
As the claim of extraordinary pension was not granted, based on the second viscera report, the appellant made several representations for grant of extraordinary pension, however, when no order was passed, Service Single No. 17202 of 2018 was filed by her, which came to be decided on 02.07.2018 by the Single Judge requiring the respondents to decide representation. As noticed hereinbefore, the representation was decided by order impugned dated 03.08.2018 rejecting the claim.
In the petition, it was claimed that in terms of provision of Rule 3 of the Rules, if a Police Officer dies while performing his duties, the extraordinary pension is payable and as the appellant’s husband had died while on duty, pension was payable and the denial was not justified.
The Single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that only in case, a person fulfils the circumstances, as mentioned in Rule 3, he can be entitled for grant of extraordinary pension and as in the case husband of the appellant was only conducting an investigation and there was no mention of intervention by any other person responsible for his death, the provisions of Rule 3 were not applicable and, consequently, dismissed the petition.
Counsel for the appellant submissions that the respondents as well as the Single Judge were not justified in rejecting/dismissing the claim/writ petition. Submissions have been made that admittedly the appellant’s husband was on duty, when he fell ill and was taken to home and from there to hospital where he was declared ‘brought dead’ and, therefore, the provisions of Rules were very much applicable and denial of extraordinary pension is wholly unjustified.
The Court observed that,
In the case, it is an admitted case of the parties that the husband of the appellant, post investigation, when he was preparing to leave for home, suddenly fell ill with pain in his body and was taken to his official residence and from there to the hospital where he was declared ‘brought dead’. The viscera report, initially, indicated presence of ‘Aluminum Phosphide’, i.e, ‘Salphas’ and on a recheck at the instance of the appellant, ‘Ethyl Alcohol’ was found in the viscera.
From the above assertion made by the appellant, it is apparent that it is nobody’s case that the presence of either ‘Aluminum Phosphide’ or ‘Ethyl Alcohol’, as found in the viscera of the deceased, had anything to do with the performance of his duties. It is also nobody’s case that during the course of the investigation, anything happened which led to the administration of the said poisonous substance to the deceased.
“From a perusal of the provisions of Rule 3 of the 1975 rule and the judgment in the case of Gyanwati Devi (supra), it is apparent that not every case of death of a police personnel while performing duty for any cause, whatsoever, would entitle the widow/family to extraordinary pension. The cause of death of the personnel has to have some causal connection with the performance of his duties. In this case it is nobody’s case that the death occurred on account of any event/cause during the course of investigation, which resulted in presence of poison in the viscera of the deceased, either ‘Aluminum Phosphide’ or ‘Ethyl Alcohol’ and, therefore, apparently the case of the appellant would not be governed by the provisions of Rules for grant of extraordinary pension.
So far as judgment in the case of Malti Devi (supra) is concerned, the said judgment has essentially dealt with the aspect of ‘course of employment’ and with reference to the judgments under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, came to the conclusion that where an employee, in the course of discharge of his official duties, has been sent from his place of posting to another station for the period such an employee continued at another station, it can not be said that he is not on official duty and the same has already come to an end and came to the conclusion that the notional extension theory would apply.
The Division Bench referred to the amendment introduced in the year 1975 whereby the applicability was extended to death during course of performance of duties and not confined to fighting dacoits, armed criminals or foreign insurgencies, however, the extent of such applicability and the causal connection has not been dealt with and, therefore, the said judgment cannot be read as laying down a proposition of law that in every case, if death of an employee occurs while on duty for whatever reason, the case would be covered under the provisions of Rule 3, as sought to be submitted on behalf of the appellant in the circumstances of the case”, the Court observed while dismissing the petition.