# Smt. Raj Kumari Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1057
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 6695 of 2016
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-raj-kumari-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48398
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Extraordinary Pension -
U.P. Police (Extra Ordinary Pension) (First
Amendment) Rules, 1975 - Rule 3 - In
case person dies because of accident at
the time of going or coming back after
1058 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
official duty, such person shall be entitled
for extraordinary pension. 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.
(Para 10)

In present case, it is not in dispute that the
deceased police official was duly deputed on a
rescue mission duly recorded in the G.D. and as
per the enquiry report. The deceased employee
complied
with
directions
and
successfully
rescued the trapped victims. In the course of
complying the second leg of the direction that
the victims are to be transported to the Trauma
Centre, the deceased employee succumbed to
the injury caused due to electric shock at the
barrack. The death, in the circumstances
occurred while the official was on duty
complying the official orders. Petitioner is
entitled to extraordinary pension being covered
under Rule 3 of Rules, 1975. (Para 11)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

5 All. Smt. Raj Kumari Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1057
which govern the terms and conditions of
his service, and while deciding the said
case, reliance was placed on various earlier
judgments of the Court, including, B.J.
Shelat v. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR
1978 SC 1109; Ramesh Chandra Sharma
v. Punjab National Bank & Anr., (2007)
9 SCC 15; and UCO Bank & Anr. v.
Rajinder Lal Capoor, AIR 2008 SC
1831.

28. As noted in the preceding
paragraphs that the embargo of Article 351-A
of Civil Service Regulations would not come
on the way of the State to conclude the
proceedings from the stage of defect even
though the petitioner has retired. The
departmental proceedings commenced before
the retirement of the petitioner. The
impugned order is unsustainable due to the
procedural defect in concluding the enquiry
and not owing to an illegality that would
vitiate the departmental enquiry itself. The
charges against the petitioner pertain to
having caused pecuniary loss to the State
which can be pressed even after the
retirement of the petitioner. The recovery, on
the charges being proved, can be made from
the pension after approval of the Hon'ble
Governor.

29. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and upon perusal of
the material documents, in particular, the
enquiry report, with the assistance of learned
counsel for the parties, the impugned order
dated 13.04.2016, passed by the first
respondent, Principal Secretary, Department
of Medical and Health, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow, cannot be sustained as the same
has been passed without following the
mandate of Rule 7 of Rules, 1999.

30. Accordingly, the order dated
13.04.2016, passed by the first respondent,
Principal
Secretary,
Department
of
Medical and Health, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow, is set aside and quashed.
Liberty is granted to the first respondent to
appoint an enquiry officer who shall
proceed from the stage of the reply
submitted
by
the
petitioner.
The
department shall appoint a presenting
officer who shall present the documents to
be relied upon in support of the charges
and, thereafter, disciplinary proceedings
shall
be
concluded,
expeditiously,
preferably, within six months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this
order, provided the petitioner cooperates
and there is no other impediment.

31. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is allowed in part.

32. No cost.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1057
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 6695 of 2016

Smt. Raj Kumari Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Extraordinary Pension -
U.P. Police (Extra Ordinary Pension) (First
Amendment) Rules, 1975 - Rule 3 - In
case person dies because of accident at
the time of going or coming back after
1058 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
official duty, such person shall be entitled
for extraordinary pension. 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.
(Para 10)

In present case, it is not in dispute that the
deceased police official was duly deputed on a
rescue mission duly recorded in the G.D. and as
per the enquiry report. The deceased employee
complied
with
directions
and
successfully
rescued the trapped victims. In the course of
complying the second leg of the direction that
the victims are to be transported to the Trauma
Centre, the deceased employee succumbed to
the injury caused due to electric shock at the
barrack. The death, in the circumstances
occurred while the official was on duty
complying the official orders. Petitioner is
entitled to extraordinary pension being covered
under Rule 3 of Rules, 1975. (Para 11)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Rajanna Vs U.O.I., 1995 Supp. (2) Supreme
Court Cases 601 (Para 10)

2. Smt. Noorjahan Vs St. of U.P. & ors., [2003
(21) LCD 264] (Para 10)

3. Smt. Lilawati Devi Vs St. of U.P., 2010 (28)
LCD 290 (Para 10)

4. Smt. Sushila Devi Vs St. of U.P. WP No. 4523
(SS) 2013, decided on 08.01.2014 (Para 10)

Present petition challenges the order
dated 27.03.2015, passed by Principal
Secretary Home Department, Government
of U.P., Lucknow.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)

1.
Heard
Ms.
Pallavi
Dubey,
Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rajendra
Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents and perused the
record with their assistance.

2. Petitioner is the wife of the
deceased employee (constable 2550 CP
Indrasen Yadav), has raised challenge to
the impugned order dated 27.03.2015
passed by the first respondent, Principal
Secretary Home Department, Government
of U.P., Lucknow, whereby, the claim of
the petitioner for extraordinary pension
admissible
under
U.P.
Police
(Extra
Ordinary Pension) (First Amendment)
Rules, 1975 (for short ''Rules, 1975') has
been rejected on the ground that the
circumstances leading to the death of the
petitioner is not enumerated/contemplated
under Rule 3 of Rules, 1975.

3. The respondents in the counter
affidavit do not dispute that the deceased
employee was given duty on 13.09.2012 as
fellow traveller as per General Diary (G.D.)
entry no. 59 at 18.45. On 14.09.2012, the
deceased employee along with others was
directed to proceed to Mohalla Sahjadpur,
Kasta Amethi, to rescue the persons
trapped under the wall that had collapsed
due to heavy rain. Petitioner alongwith
others proceeded on the spot and showing
exemplary courage and valour, the police
team was able to rescue the trapped victims
under the collapsed wall. The police
officials, including, the deceased employee,
thereafter, were directed to take the injured
to the nearby hospital/Trauma Centre. To
comply the order, the deceased employee
returned to the barrack for changing his wet
clothes drenched in the heavy rain. While
changing his apparel at the barrack, the
deceased employee succumbed due to
electrocution. It appears that the electric
current had leaked causing the fatal injury.
Circle Officer vide communication dated
22.09.2012,
addressed
to
the
Senior
5 All. Smt. Raj Kumari Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1059
Superintendent of Police, Mohanlalganj,
submitted a report, wherein, it has been
recorded that the deceased employee's
rawangi is duly recorded at G.D. No. 29 on
14.09.2012,
directing
the
deceased
employee alongwith others to proceed to
the spot to rescue the persons trapped under
the collapsed wall. The team was able to
rescue the trapped victims and thereafter
the rescue team was directed to get the
victims admitted in the hospital/Trauma
Centre. The deceased employee succumbed
to injury caused by the leakage of electric
current at the barrack where he had gone to
change his drenched clothes.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the State-respondent that since the
deceased employee succumbed to injury
caused by electric current, it cannot be said
that he was on official duty within the
meaning of Rule 3 of Rules, 1975.

5. Rule 3 for ready reference is
extracted:

**3&;g fu;ekoyh jkT;iky ds
cuk;s fu;e ls fueaf=r gksus okys LFkk;h ;k
vLFkk;h :i esa lsok;ksftr lHkh iqfyl
vf/kdkfj;ksa vkSj deZpkfj;ksa 1⁄4jktif=r vkSj
vjktif=r nksuksa1⁄2 Ikj ykxw gksxh tks Mkdqvksa ;k
l'kL= vijkf/k;ksa ;k fons'kh izfrjks/k;ksa ls yMus es
;k fdlh vU; drZC; dk ikyu djus ds nkSjku
ekjs tk;s ;s ftudh e`R;q gks tk;sA**

6. The Rule, inter alia, is applicable to
the police officers whether temporary or
otherwise gazetted/non-gazetted who are
killed or die in an encounter with dacoits;
armed criminals and foreign insurgencies or
while
performing
any
other
duty
in
compliance of a direction/order.

7. On bare perusal of the Rule 3, it
appears that the Rule is inclusive and non
exhaustive, the expression ''or any other duty'
encompasses within fold any assigned duty.

8. In the backdrop of Rule 3, it is
evident that the deceased employee was
deputed on a mission of rescuing the victims
trapped under the collapsed wall due to heavy
rain. The victims were successfully rescued
and thereafter on the direction of the officials
the deceased employee and others were
required to carry the injured to Trauma
Centre at Lucknow. The petitioner to comply
the order had gone to the barrack to change
his wet clothes and suffered electricity
current shock caused due to electric leak. The
injury suffered by the employee and
consequently his death was in compliance of
his duty in the course of his employment and
not otherwise.

9. In the circumstances, the death of
the petitioner would squarely fall under
Rule 3 of Rules, 1975. The impugned order
does not notice the entire Rule 3, in
particular, "or in compliance of any other
duty" which encompasses within its fold
any act done by the official during duty.

10. In support of his submission,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance on the decision rendered by
the Supreme Court in Rajanna v. Union of
India, 1995 Supp. (2) Supreme Court
Cases 601, wherein, the 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.
Similarly, in Smt. Noorjahan v. State of
U.P. and others, [2003 (21) LCD 264], the
Court observed that in case person dies
because of accident at the time of going or
coming back after official duty, such
person shall be entitled for extraordinary
pension. (Refer: Smt. Lilawati Devi
1060 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
versus State of U.P.1; Smt. Sushila Devi
versus State of U.P.2)

11. In the case at hand, it is not in
dispute that the deceased police official
was duly deputed on a rescue mission duly
recorded in the G.D. and as per the enquiry
report. The deceased employee complied
with directions and successfully rescued the
trapped victims. In the course of complying
the second leg of the direction that the
victims are to be transported to the Trauma
Centre, the deceased employee succumbed
to the injury caused due to electric shock at
the
barrack.
The
death,
in
the
circumstances occurred while the official
was on duty complying the official orders.
Petitioner is entitled to extraordinary
pension being covered under Rule 3 of
Rules, 1975.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.
The
impugned
order
dated
27.03.2015, passed by the first respondent,
Principal Secretary Home Department,
Government of U.P., Lucknow, is set aside
and quashed. State-respondents are directed
to compute and grant extraordinary pension
to the petitioner w.e.f. 14.09.2012, within
two months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. Petitioner shall
be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per
annum on the due amount from the due
date till the payment is received.
----------

(2022)05ILR A1060
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.
Writ A No. 3786 of 2022

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Public Service Tribunal, Lko & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.N. Shukla (S.C.)

A.
Service
Law
-
Disciplinary
Proceedings
-
Oral
Inquiry
-
U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
and
Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 7 - It has
been
consistently
held
that
a
departmental
inquiry
against
government servant is not to be treated
as a casual exercise and the principles of
natural
justice
are
required
to
be
observed so as to ensure not only that
justice is done but is manifestly seen to
be done; the object being to ensure that the
delinquent is treated fairly in proceedings
which may culminate in imposition of a major
penalty against him. (Para 14)

After a charge sheet is given to the employee,
an oral inquiry is must whether the employee
requests for it or not. Further, it is mandatory
to give a notice to him indicating the date,
time and place of the enquiry, the principle
being that charge-sheeted employee should
not only know the charges against him but
should also know the evidence against him so
that he can properly reply to the same. (Para
9)

In the present case, as the inquiry officer
failed to fix any date, place or time in the
conduct of inquiry and the absence of any
witness having been examined to support
the
charges
levelled
against
the
respondent-employee
has
led
to
a
situation where the delinquent has been
condemned unheard. The entire proceedings,
being a violation of principles of natural justice
and total disregard of procedural fairness, have
rightly been held by the Tribunal to be vitiated.
(Para 17)