Allahabad High Court Refuses Extraordinary Pension To UP Police Support Staff Killed In Road Accident While Going For Duty
The Allahabad High Court has refused pension to the family of a UP Police Follower (support staff), who was killed in a road accident, while going for duty. It held that road accidents are not covered by Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules 1961 which provide the exigencies in which the pension can be granted.Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary...
The Allahabad High Court has refused pension to the family of a UP Police Follower (support staff), who was killed in a road accident, while going for duty. It held that road accidents are not covered by Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules 1961 which provide the exigencies in which the pension can be granted.
Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules 1961 provides that rules apply to all the Gazetted/Non-Gazetted Police, PAC or Fire Service personnel of Uttar Pradesh, whether employed in a permanent or temporary capacity under the rule making control of the Governor, who die under the circumstances provided in the Rule which include death due to attack/fight with terrorists, Naxalites, extremists, aggressive public, or death while carrying out relief work during natural or manmade disasters or fire incidents, or death due to attack in curfew areas or while escorting a prisoner.
Rule 5 provides that for any exigency which is not mentioned under Rule 3, no award of pension could be made.
Deceased was a Follower in the State Civil Police. He died in 1992 after meeting with a road accident while going to prepare a meal. His wife applied for pension claim under the Rules, but the same was rejected. The order was challenged before the High Court.
Justice Vikas Budhwar held,
“Notably, returning or going for preparing meal as a follower and confronted with an accident on road is not a incident or a factor to be considered for payment of extraordinary pension, particularly when Rule 5 itself creates a bar that no award is to be made in respect of the death caused by any reason covered under Rule 3. Since Rule 3 does not contemplate such an exigency, thus on this ground the writ petitioner is not entitled to relief.”
Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefit under the Rules and the writ petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Smt. Shushila Shukla v. The State Of U.P.Through Principal Secy.