DEVI PRASAD SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Kapil Dev, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhishek Yadav, and learned stand­ing Counsel as well as perused record.
(2.) SHORT question involved in the present writ petition relates to payment of extraordinary pension under the Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) (First Amendment) Rules, 1975 in short 'the Rules'. Submission is that on 26.2.1994 the petition­er's husband was going from Allahabad to Faizabad along with inspector Sri A.P. Singh. The movement of the petitioner's husband from Allahabad to Faizabad was with regard to certain investigation. The police jeep on which the petitioner's husband was moving along with the Inspector, met with an acci­dent and in consequence thereof, he died. Thereafter, an application was moved for payment of extraordinary pension. By the impugned order the application has been rejected. Petitioner's Counsel invited atten­tion to Rule 3 as amended and enforced from 1.4.1972, which provides that in case any police personnel dies during course of duty, shall be entitled to extraordinary pension. Petitioner's Counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1995 Supp. (2) Supreme Court Cases 601, Rajanna v. Union of India, in that case Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case a person is on duty and while going for official duty some injury is caused and the employee succumbs to injury, then he is also entitled for extraordinary pension. Relevant para 9 and 13 of the Rajanna's case are reproduced as under: "9. The admitted facts clearly show that the appellant sustained injuries resulting in his permanent partial disablement in a motor accident when he was traveling from the staff quarters to the Sought Block for duty in the official SPG vehicle provided for that purpose. This road journey was not in his private vehicle or a public trans­port in which any member of the public.could travel but in an official SPG vehicle meant for carrying the SPG personnel on duty. On these facts, it cannot be doubted that there would be notional extension of the actual duty to include the journey of this kind in the official SPG vehicle between the staff quarters and South Block. The principle under the Workmen's Compensation Act for determining whether an accident arose out of and in the course of the employment of the workman should be equally appli­cable to the circular since both have the same object. It is, therefore, useful to refer to some decisions of thisjCourt on the point under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Xxx xxx xxx xxx 13. There can be no doubt that there was a casual relationship between the acci­dent in which the appellant sustained the injuries and his employment in the SPG for actual VIP security duty; and it was an incident of his employment to travel from the staff quarters to the South Block in the SPG vehicle according to the official arrangement. In our opinion, the meaning of the expres­sion "actual VIP security duty" in the above circular must be the same as that of the words "in the above circular must be the same as that of the words "in the course of the employment" in the Workmen's Compensa­tion Act; and, therefore, the test for deter­mining the liability for payment under the circular should also be the same. In our view, the Tribunal was in error in making an unduly strict and narrow construction of the expres­sion used in the circular."
(3.) ANOTHER judgment of learned Sin­gle Judge of this Court has been relied upon by the petitioner's Counsel reported in [2003 (21) LCD 264], Smt. Noor Jahan v. State of U.P. and others, in which learned Single Judge while deciding the controversy observed that in case a person dies be­cause of accident at the time of going or coming back after official duty, such per­son shall be entitled for extraordinary pension. Relevant para 5 of the said judg­ment is reproduced as under: "5. From the above conspectus, it is explicit beyond any vestige of doubt that petitioner's husband was on official duty and he was on way back to Lucknow from Bareilly, when the accident occurred. It thus brooks no dispute that the husband of the petitioner was on official duty when he succumbed to his injuries as a result of accident. It would further transpire that earlier applications made for sanction of extra­ordinary pension came to be rejected os­tensibly in oblivion of Rule 3 of the Amended Niyamawali, 1975 and the Government or­der referred to above a bare perusal of which bespeaks in no Delphic terms that the family of the deceased lal Mohammad was en­titled to Asadharan Pension in the above perspective, the authorities were wholly unjustified in declining the benefits to the family of the deceased on the hypothesis that the deceased though on official duty, was performing the journey by a truck. That apart, I would not for bear from observing here that the provisions of extra-ordinary pension were formulated with the avowed object of providing succour to the family of a deceased police official and the au­thorities should have placed equity before technicalities and proceeded in the matter hearing in mind the aforestated objects un­derlying the rule." ;