STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. PREETI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the sake of brevity and convenience, the party shall be referred to as arrayed in the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner-State has challenged the order dated 05.11.2020, passed by a learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No.590 of 2018, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, and has directed the State to sanction and grant extraordinary pension in favour of the petitioner, Smt. Preeti Chand, a lady who lost her husband suddenly in call of duty.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband, Mr. Ramesh Chand Rajwar, was a SubInspector (Civil Police) in the Police Department. In the year 2013, he was posted at Police Station Dharchula. He was incharge of the Special Operation Group (for short 'SOG') constituted for controlling typical crimes such as forest smuggling, and poaching. On 25.09.2013 at 8:15 P.M., the Police Station was informed that forest smugglers had entered the forest, and were carrying on their nefarious activities. Therefore, the petitioner's husband went to the scene of crime in Tawaghat Tapovan. In order to show his departure from the police station, relevant entries were made in the General Diary. Unfortunately, while the petitioner's husband was returning from the scene of the crime, his vehicle got trapped in a landslide caused by the heavy rains. A boulder struck the head of the petitioner's husband; he died on the spot. Due to the death of her husband, the Department granted the family pension to the petitioner. But the extraordinary pension has not been granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had filed an application before the Department for seeking the benefit of extraordinary pension. The Superintendent of Police, Pithoragarh submitted his report to the Police Headquarters, Dehradun "that the petitioner is entitled for receiving extraordinary pension". By a letter dated 20.12.2016, in turn, the Police Headquarters recommended to the Office of Accountant General that the petitioner is, indeed, entitled to receive the extraordinary pension. By letter dated 27.02.2017, the office of Accountant General also recommended to the State Government that under the Rule 3, Sub Rule (3) of U.P. Police Extraordinary Pension Rules, 1961 (for short 'the Rules'), petitioner is certainly entitled to receive the extraordinary pension. Furthermore, by letters dated 20.03.2017 & 08.09.2017, the Police Headquarters again recommended to the State Government that the petitioner should be granted extraordinary pension. However, despite the repeated recommendations both by Police Headquarter and by Accountant General, State rejected the petitioner's claim. Left with no other option, the petitioner approached before this Court by filing the writ petition. By the impugned judgment dated 05.11.2020, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in the terms mentioned hereinabove. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.