VINEET KOTHARI, J. - (1.) BY this writ petitioner, the petitioner, a widow of late Shri Shankar Lal, who was working as Assistant Sub -inspector of Police Department, has filed this writ petition for claiming special pensionary Award under Chapter XXIH -B of Rajasthan Service Rules on the ground that her husband Shri Shankar Lal died while on duty in the night intervening 16.12.1991 and, 17.12.1991. The petitioner has submitted in the writ petition that the husband of the petitioner Shri Shankar Lal was appointed as Assistant Sub -Inspector in the police, department on 20.8.1974 and was posted as ASI at Police Station Abu Road City, District Sirohi. On 16.12.1991 he was asked to go for investigation at 11:30 PM in the night vide entry No. 675 in Rojnamcha report maintained at the said police station vide Exhibit 1 and upcta an information received at 1:45 AM during the mid night between 16.12.1991 and 17.12.1991 that an accident has taken place of the motor cycle No. RJ 24 M 8249, the other officials of the said Police Station visited the site and found that the said ASI Shankar Lal was involved in the said accident and he died as a result of the said accident which happened while doing his duty. The petitioner, widow of the said ASI Shankar Lal, was only paid the normal family pension i.e. half of the special pension in accordance with the relevant Rules in RSR. The petitioner preferred this writ petition in this Court on 25.3.1996 claiming aforesaid special pension under Chapter XXIII -B under the Rules 268 -1, 268 -J and 268 -K of the said Rules.
(2.) THE State has filed a reply to the said writ petition and contested this writ petition. Mr. Anil Vyas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, the controversy involved in this writ petition is covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Savita Yadav v. State decided on 11.1.1990 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1668/1987 which judgment has been produced as Exhibit 10 along with the writ petition. He further submits that after the said Division Bench decision, a coordinate Single Bench allowed the writ petition in similar circumstances namely Smt. Vinod Kanwar v. State and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2254/1993 decided on 21.9.2001. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant extract including the extract of the Division Bench Judgment from the judgment of learned Single Judge in Vinod Kanwar's case (supra). 2. The validity of these Rules was challenged before this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1668/1987 (Smt. Savita Vadav v. The State of Raj.). This Court held (sic allowed) the said writ petition to the extent of introducing the word 'while discharging their duties' after the words 'killed or died' (in Rule 268 -J). The relevant part of the order is extracted as follows: We find force in the submissions with respect of Rule 268 I and Rule 268J. As regards Rule 268 I 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 any enemy action. The said part of Sub -rule (ii) of Rule 268 -I appears to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore that deserves to be struck down. So far as Rule 268J 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 2681 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and the Rules 268 -J is read down by introducing the word '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 2681 and the Rule 268J. Sd/ - M.C. Jain, Actg. C.J. Sd/ - R.S. Verma, J. 3. I am told that a Special Leave to Appeal filed by the State Government against the said judgment has been rejected by the Apex Court by order dated 7.1.1991.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit as given in the aforesaid writ petition.;