DHANPATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's husband, late A.S.I. Mahender Singh was at the relevant time posted in the Police Station Gannaur, district Sonepat. On 27th March, 1994 he was called to visit village Umedgarh in connection with a complaint that had been made by one Ved Kaur alleging that some threat had been held out to her son Vinod Kumar by some residents of the village on which F.I.R. No. 50 dated 27.3.1994 Police Station Gannaur had been registered. From the facts as made out from a copy of F.I.R. No. 51 dated 27.3.1994, which has been produced before me in Court, it appears that as A.S.I. Mahender Singh accosted the miscreants and made an attempt to arrest them, he was abused in a filthy manner by one of the miscreants Dr. Virender, and while he was encircled and caught hold of by some others one of whom named Anand took out the A.S.I.'s service revolver from its holster and fired four shots at him killing him at the spot. It is the petitioner's case being the widow of the deceased A.S.I. that as her husband had died on account of the special risk attached to his duties as a police officer, she was entitled to an additional pension on that account as envisaged by Rule 8.26(7)(i), (8) read along with Rule 8.33 of Chapter VIII, Part-I, (Volume II) of Punjab Civil Services Rules , as applicable to Haryana, (hereinafter called the "Rules"). Reliance has also been placed on the case of Head Constable Mohindner Singh who had been granted a special risk pension as he had been killed at the time of duty.

(2.) On notice of motion, a reply has been put in by the respondents and the petitioner's claim to the special risk pension has been denied on the ground that A.S.I. Mahender Singh had been killed in the course of an investigation into an offence and not in an encounter and, as such, the case referred to by the petitioner in the writ petition i.e. the case of Head Constable Mahinder Singh (who had been killed in an encounter) was not applicable. It has been pleaded that all the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner as the widow of the deceased A.S.I. Mahender Singh had been given to her as detailed in Annexure R-1.

(3.) Mr. R.S. Dhankar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the rules aforementioned and has argued that the petitioner was entitled to the special risk pension on account of the death of her husband A.S.I. Mahender Singh in the course of the discharge of his duties as the payment of the pension was authorised by the rules in question.