CRUX : State of Uttarakhand vs Smt. Preeti Chand - Uttarakhand HC directs state govt. to grant extraordinary pension to wife of officer who died in the field of duty.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 5th April 2021
CORUM : Justices Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J. and Alok Kumar Verma, J.
PARTIES
State of Uttarakhand (Petitioner)
Smt. Preeti Chand (Respondent)
COUNSEL
Mr. Vikas Pande (for the appellant)
Mr. D.S. Patni, assisted by Mr. Mahendra Singh Rawat (for the respondent)
ISSUE : Does the case fall within the ambit of Rule 3 of UP Police extraordinary pension rule of 1961 and the order issued by the government in 1988 and does it make the wife eligible for extraordinary pension?
SUMMARY : The HC upheld the single judge judgement and directs government to grant extraordinary judgement to the wife of the late officer.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Rule 3 of UP Police extraordinary pension rule of 1961
- Government order dated on 19th August 1988 regarding the same.
OVERVIEW
- This case was brought before the court when the petitioner-state (state of Uttarakhand) challenged the order which was passed on 5th November 2020, by single judge in a Writ petition No. 590 of 2018, in which order the judge directed the state to issue extraordinary pension in favour of Smt. Priti Chand who lost her husband, Sri Ramesh Chand Rajwar, in call of duty.
- Mr. Ramesh Chandra Rajwar was at a post of sub inspector in the police department. In 2013 he was posted at Dharchula police station and was made in charge of Special Operation Group (SOG) maid for looking over specific crimes such as coaching and forest smuggling. On 25th November 2013, the police station received information that a smugglers group has entered the forest and conducting their activities. The petitioner went out to the scene of crime and these activities were recorded in the general diary. Unfortunately, while he was getting back to the police station he was caught in a landslide and the boulder struck his head is leading to his death on the spot. As a result of this death the police department granted family pension to the wife, but no extra ordinary pension was granted. But as no extraordinary pension was granted the petitioner approved the department seeking for the benefit. The superintendent of police Pithoragarh also said in his report that the wife shall get extraordinary pension. The office of accountant general also advise the state government that as per rule 3, sub rule (3) of UP Police extraordinary pension rule 1961 the petitioner is entitled to receive an extraordinary pension. Even after various recommendations by the police department and the accountant General the state denied the granting of extraordinary pension to the wife consequently the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court.
ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES
- The counsel for the state contended that the rule 3 of the rules is only applicable for those officers engaged against dacoits, or armed offenders, or foreign intruders etc. The counsel for the explain that this rule would only apply for the police officers died fighting Anti-social elements of the society like the dacoits, terrorist, or if they had died while trying to control a violent crowd or while trying to tackle natural calamities. The work assigned to the late officer does not fall under this category, so the government was entitled in not giving the extraordinary pension to the wife.
- The counsel for the the petitioner contended that rule 3 of the rules as used words like "any other actions in which police officer was killed". The petitioner also claimed that the very first clause that is "while fighting dacoits or any other Anti-social elements" covers the case for the petitioner’s husband as he was was working for the SOG. And the petitioners husband only went to the forest to stop the smugglers from conducting their illegal activities. The council supports the judgement from the single judge bench and has said that the state is entitled to provide extraordinary pension to the officer's wife.
JUDGEMENT
- The court observed that the petitioner's husband was working as a sub inspector in civil police and was later made in charge of the SOG 2013. And the SOG was set up for controlling criminal activities in the forest which are smuggling precious items, or poaching, or killing of animals for personal profit.
- It was also observed by the court that the petitioner's husband only went to the forest to take care of the smuggling group who were conducting illegal activities in the forest and the task assigned was a special and dangerous one.
- The government order dated on 19th August 1988 which was mentioned by the respondent clearly mentions category of anti-social elements and dacoits. And the court observed that forest smugglers and poachers undoubtedly fall within the category of 'anti-social elements'. And while returning from his duty the husband made his untimely death and petitioner can claim for receiving extraordinary pension which can be backed both by rule 3 of the rules and my government order dated on 19th August 1988.
- The court also held that the single judge order was justified and while observing the order it was revealed that they are cryptic in nature. The order was delivered observing that any such order that adversely affects the Civil of fundamental rights of an individual would have to be a heavily reasoned order.
- Intimately the court states that no such illegality or for obesity was found in the order passed by the single judge. As a result, it this appeal is hereby dismissed.
CONCLUSION
This code was brought forward when Shri Ramesh Chandra Rajwar message untimely death while serving in the SOG unit of the police. he was hit by A boulder and died on the spot while returning from the forest where he was gone to deal with A group of smugglers conduct and illegal activities in the forest. After his death, the wife was awarded his pension, but no extraordinary pension was awarded. As a result, the wife approached the court and with the recommendations of the Police Department and Accountant General, the single judge ordered the government to grant extraordinary pension to the petitioner. As a state move to the High Court claiming that this case should not be covered under Rule 3 of UP Police extraordinary pension rules, 1961 and a government order passed on 19th August 1988 also backs the claim.
The two-judge bench of the high court held that the duty which the petitioner's husband was performing comes under the Ambit of rule 3 and the order passed by the government in 1988 as he went to the forest to deal with the smuggling group which are clearly the anti-social elements of the society. Hence the high court rejected the present appeal and ordered for the extraordinary pension to the officer's wife.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
