# Smt. Shushila Shukla v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1248
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-30
- **Case number:** Writ A No 168 of 2002
- **Bench:** Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-shushila-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-54385
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

1248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 4 ILRA 1248
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Writ A No 168 of 2002

Smt. Shushila Shukla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
(1) Applicability of the UP Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1961 on the entitlement of Follower's widow
to get the extra-ordinary pension.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Extra-ordinary pension - Entitlement of widow - The husband was crushed by
a Maruti car, while discharging the duty as the Follower in State Civil Police, and was expired -
Claim for extra-ordinary pension was rejected - Validity challenged - Applicability of the Rules,
1961 and Rules, 2009 felt into consideration: (E-1)
Held: Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules 1961 also provides for grant of
extraordinary pension to permanent or temporary employees. Thus on the said count, it appears that the
order dated 07.06.2002 proceeds on misconception of fact that the follower is not covered under the 1961
Rules. [Para 10]
Further held: 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. [Para 11]

Case Law Cited
Service Single No. 40 of 2011, Krishna Murari vs. State of U.P. decided on 06.02.2009 - referred to.

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules 1961 - Rule 3 and 5; Uttar Pradesh Police Group 'D'
Employees Service Rules, 2009 - Rule 4.

List of Keywords
First Information Report, Extra-ordinary pension, Legal heirs, Contingency, Misconception, Exigency,
Parameter, Ambit.

Case Arising From
Order dated 07.06.2002 passed by the State Government rejecting the claim of Extra-ordinary pension.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant: Amar Nath Dubey, Asif Hasan
Advs. for the Respondents: Badrish Kumar Tripathi (S.C.)
4 All. Smt. Shushila Shukla Vs. State of U.P.
1249
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Badrish Kumar
Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the husband of the original writ petitioner, who
happens to be the wife of Sri Heera Lal Shukla was working in State Civil Police since 14.10.1972
as a Follower. On 02.10.1999, being the fateful day, the petitioner's husband was required from his
residence to prepare a meal for the additional force who were camping in connection with election
duty. The writ petitioner left his house at 11:30 p.m. and when the petitioner's husband was going
to attend the duty on his bicycle, he was crushed by a Maruti Car at 11:30 p.m. near the AMC
Supply Depot on the way from Charbagh side to Kanpur. A first information report stood lodged by
the brother of the husband of the deceased with respect to fatal accident being Case Crime
no.179/99 under Sections 279, 304-A, 427 IPC at P.S. Alambagh, Lucknow on 03.10.1999. The
husband of the writ petitioner expired and a criminal proceeding stood triggered. Post death of
husband of the writ petitioner before his date of his retirement, the writ petitioner staked his claim
for grant of extra-ordinary pension and the said claim came to be rejected on 07.06.2002 by the
order of the State Government.

3. Though initially, the petition was preferred seeking mandamus to extend the
extraordinary pension in terms of Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules 1961, but
consequent to the rejection of the claim, amendment came to be filed, which was allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the consideration which
weighed with the respondent is negating the claim of the writ petitioner that the husband of the writ
petitioner happened to be a follower, who was called from his house for preparing meal and he met
with an accident on account whereof he died, thus the original writ petitioner, who happens to be
the widow, who also expired and now the legal heirs are entitled to extraordinary pension in terms
of Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules 1961.

5. Submission is also to the extent that follower is a post, which is equivalent to cook
/Kahar and as per Uttar Pradesh Police Group-D Employees Service Rules 2009, there are 7887
posts earmarked and sanctioned.

6. Contention is that the writ petitioner is entitled to be accorded extraordinary pension in
that regard. Reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Service
Single No.40 of 2011, Krishna Murari vs. State of U.P. decided on 06.02.2009.

7. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that whatever might
be, the issue is on a larger aspect relatable to the fact that even if it is treated that the writ petitioner
is a regular employee, then too in view of the provisions contained under Rule 3 of the 1961 Rules,
further read with Rule 5, none of the contingencies for grant of extraordinary pension stands
extracted as it is not the case of death due to attack/fight with dacoits/criminals/foreign
hostiles/extremists/ terrorists/naxalites, death due to attack by aggressive public, death due to
accident, while undergoing important training/demonstration, death during rescue and relief
1250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
operations undertaken during natural calamities like flood/earthquake/landslide/snow storm etc. or
man made disasters like train accidents, tanker blast etc., death while extinguishing fire or helping
in extinguishing fire in any area, death due to attack in an area under curfew; and death due to
attack while escorting prisoner. Contention is that mere accident would not come within the
beneficial provision in that regard.

8. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record.

9. Before embarking an enquiry upon the rival submissions, it would apposite to extract the
relevant statutory provisions:

 "The Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1961

 ....

 3. These rules shall 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, whose death occur while on duty under the following
circumstances:

 (a) death due to attack/fight with dacoits/criminals/foreign hostiles/extremists/
terrorists/naxalites etc.;

 (b) death due to attack by aggressive public;

 (c) death due to accident, while undergoing important training/demonstration;

 (d) death during rescue and relief operations undertaken during natural calamities like
flood/earthquake/landslide/snow storm etc. or man made disasters like train accidents, tanker blast
etc.;

 (e) death while extinguishing fire or helping in extinguishing fire in any area;

 (f) death due to attack in an area under curfew; and

 (g) death due to attack while escorting prisoner.

 ....

 5. (5) No award shall be made in respect of death caused by any reason other than those
covered under Rule 3."

 "The Uttar Pradesh Police Group 'D' Employees Service Rules, 2009

 4. Cadre of Service.-
4 All. Smt. Shushila Shukla Vs. State of U.P.
1251
 (1) Number of posts in each category of posts therein shall be such as may be determined
by the Government from time to time provided that the appointing authority may leave unfilled by
the Governor may hold in abeyance any post or class of post without thereby entitling any person
to compensation.

 (2) The strength of service and of each category therein shall until orders varying the
same are passed under sub-rule (1), be as given below:

 Sl. No. 1, Name of the Post- Follower/ Cook/Kahar, Number of Posts - 7887"

10. Plainly and simply, the husband of the original writ petitioner and the
predecessor in interest of the substituted petitioner was a follower, who met with an
accident on the fateful day, when he was to attend the police station for cooking meal.
Though at the time when the said incident took place and when the order impugned
dated 07.06.2002 came to be passed. The Uttar Pradesh Police Group-D Employees
Service Rules 2009 was not in existence, but in view of the provisions contained under
Rule 4, further read with the chart so appended thereto, there happened to be 7887
posts of the follower /cook/kahar and the appointment in question as per the said Rule
was substantive in nature. Further Rule 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary
Pension) Rules 1961 also provides for grant of extraordinary pension to permanent or
temporary employees. Thus on the said count, it appears that the order dated
07.06.2002 proceeds on misconception of fact that the follower is not covered under the
1961 Rules.

11. Now, a question arises whether in the wake of the provisions contained under
Rule 3 read with Rule 5 of the 1961 Rules whether the writ petitioner is entitled to
extraordinary pension or not. 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.

12. Though this Court would have remanded the matter back to the authority to pass
a fresh order, particularly in view of the fact that the follower also holds a post and as per
Rule 3 of the 1961 Rules, temporary and permanent employees are covered, but since the
writ petitioner does not come within the parameters or ambit of 1961 Rules for grant of
benefits, thus it would be a futile exercise to remit the matter back. Accordingly, this Court
is of the opinion that no good ground is made out to interfere in this regard, particularly
while invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

13. Resultantly, interference is declined. The writ petition stands disposed of leaving it
open for the writ petitioner to avail other remedies which are available against the vehicle owner or
the driver, as the case may be under the Motor Vehicles Act.
----------
1252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 4 ILRA 1252
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 220 of 2011

Shiv Bachan Ram ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Applicability of principle of natural justice in the matter of cancellation of appointment obtained on the
strength of a forged mark-sheet.
(2) Relevancy of verification reports in the matter of cancellation of an appointment obtained on the basis of a
fictitious document.
(3) High Court's power to impose exemplary costs.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Cancellation of appointment - Assistant Teacher - Forged mark-sheet was
used to obtain the appointment - On the direction of writ court, the Secretary also found marksheet forged - Single Judge dismissed writ petition - Validity challenged - Ground was taken
that the learned Single Judge relied upon the verification report without granting adequate
opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the same - Further pleaded that no proper inquiry into the
alleged forgery was conducted and that the report could not have been relied upon without
affording an opportunity of hearing and action taken was violative of the principles of natural
justice - Permissibility - Relevancy of verification reports felt into consideration:
Held: The principles of natural justice are intended to ensure fairness and cannot be invoked to protect a
claim founded on a forged document - The contention that the learned Single Judge recorded findings on
forgery without a regular trial also cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. The writ court was not
trying the appellant for an offence. It was examining whether the employer was justified in cancelling an
appointment obtained on the basis of a document which stood verified to be fictitious. For that purpose, the
verification reports from the competent authorities were sufficient material - It is trite that fraud vitiates every
solemn act. An appointment secured on the basis of a forged educational certificate does not confer any
enforceable right upon the appointee, and no equity can be claimed on the basis of long continuance in
service. [Para 17, 18 and 19]
B. Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Ch. XXII, Rule 9 - Cost - Exemplary cost - High Court's
power to impose: (E-1)
Held: The appellant not only questioned the termination but persisted in asserting the genuineness of the
very same mark-sheet and even brought on record a certificate in support thereof, which also failed to
withstand verification. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge cannot be said to have acted
arbitrarily in imposing exemplary costs so as to deter abuse of the process of Court. The amount imposed also
cannot be said to be so disproportionate as to warrant appellate interference. [Para 20]

List of Keywords
Termination, Exemplary cost, Assistant teacher, Verification, Mark-sheet found forged, Opportunity of hearing,
Principle of natural justice, False certificate, Misconduct, Departmental enquiry, Fictitious educational