MADHU BAIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner being a widow of late Shri Madan Singh Rajpurohit, Constable seeking a direction for special pension under Rule 268-1, 268-J and 268-K of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Facts in brief are that the petitioner's husband Madan Singh Rajpurohit was employed as a Constable having belt No. 375 in the Police Department and was posted at the police out post Mandore on the relevant date. On 15.11.79 he left the out post in the discharge of his duties and was proceeding in a tempo which collided with a city bus. Madan Singh received injuries in the accident and was taken to M.G. Hospital where he expired. An F.I.R. No. 261/79 came to be registered at the Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur in relation to the accident wherein it is clearly mentioned that Constable Madan Singh bearing belt No. 375 had left the out post in a tempo. The tempo met with an accident resulting into death of Madan Singh Rajpurohit while undergoing, treatment at the M.G. Hospital. It is further pleaded that the Police Department itself treated the petitioner's husband to be a Martyr and his name was entered in the Roll of Honour vide document Ex. 3. The petitioner has also placed on record an invitation letter Ex. 4, as per which the Supdt. of Police organised a Tree Plantation Programme in the honour and memory of late Shri Madan Singh Rajpurohit treating him to be a martyr.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Police Department itself is treating the petitioner's husband to be a martyr which by necessary implication gives rise to a presumption that the department itself considers that the petitioner's husband expired while on duty. Thus, he contend that the petitioner is entitled to receive special pension as per Rules 268-1, 268-J and 268-K of the R.S.R. which were applicable at the relevant time. He placed reliance on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Mst. Papu Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3087/1996 decided on 23.10.2008 involving identical controversy wherein the widow of an Assistant Sub Inspector in Police who expired in an accident while on duty was field entitled to receive special pension under the aforesaid Rules of the R.S.R. Learned counsel submits that other matters in which, this Court followed Mst. Papu Devi's case were carried by the Department to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the view taken in Mst. Papu Devi's case was approved by the Supreme Court as well. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition deserves to be accepted.

(3.) Per contra Mr. Anil Bissa, learned A.G.C. vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. His basic objection is that the petitioner has failed to establish that her husband expired while on duty and thus she is not entitled to the relief claimed for. He submits that as the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving that her husband, a police constable expired while on duly, she is not entitled to receive special pension nuclei Rules 268-1, J & K of the R.S.R. He, however, candidly admits that the dependent of a police officer who is killed while on duty is entitled to receive especial pension in accordance with Rule 268-I, 268-J and 268-K of the R.S.R.