Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Munni Devi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 29659 of 2003 [2006] RD-AH 6691 (27 March 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.26

Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.29659 of 2003

Smt.Munni Devi


               State of U.P. and others

Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.2.2003 passed by the respondent No.3, Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) and further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to grant extra-ordinary pension to the petitioner as per rules.

The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner's husband who was working as Head Constable at Police Station Purakala, District Lalitpur in 2000, was directed to inspect regarding compliant received from Police outpost Birdha , Police Station, Purakala, District Lalitpur.  The station officer of the police station Purakala also instructed the husband of the petitioner to inspect the case crime no.72 of 2000. In pursuance of the aforesaid instruction of the Station Officer, the petitioner's husband went to police outpost Birdha then proceeded to investigate the case Crime No.72 of 2000.  The same was also entered into the general diary.  A copy of the same have been annexed by the petitioner as Annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition.  The petitioner's husband after making investigation was coming back and in an accident he died.  Immediately, a First Information Report was lodged and the Station Officer, Police Station Purakala immediately after receiving the information regarding death of the petitioner's husband has made an endorsement in the GD at 16.45 hours on 4.8.2000.  It clearly goes to show that the death of the petitioner's husband was on duty, therefore, in view of the provisions of U.P. Police Extra Ordinary Pension Rules, the petitioner is entitled to get an extra ordinary pension as the husband of the petitioner died on duty.  The petitioner submitted an application to that effect for grant of extra ordinary pension.  The said application of the petitioner was forwarded by all the relevant authorities that the petitioner's husband had died in the course of employment and he was directed to investigate the crime and while returning he met with an accident, therefore, it will be treated that the husband of the petitioner was on duty.  

The petitioner had filed the report dated 2.10.2002 (Annexure 6 to the writ peittion which is a report of Police Station Purakala.  Subsequently, the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur, has also submitted a report in favour of the petitioner that he has instructed the petitioner's husband to inspect the matter and he was investigating the matter on the direction issued by the relevant authority.  Petitioner submits that in spite of the aforesaid recommendation, to the effect that the petitioner's husband died on duty and as such, the petitioner is entitled to get extra ordinary pension as provided under the Rules.  The respondent No.2 has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide its order dated 13.2.2003.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the finding to this effect has been recorded by the respondent No.2 that it appears that the petitioner's husband has gone for some personal work and an accident has taken place, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner's husband was on duty at the time when he died in an accident.  

The further finding recorded by the respondent No.2 is that there was no permission to go for investigation to another State.  The authority under whom the husband was working and the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur has clearly given a report and recommended the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's husband was directed to investigate the matter and he was on duty, therefore, the finding recorded by the respondent No.2 is based on no evidence and has decided the case against the petitioner only in mechanical manner without application of mind.  The respondent No.2 has also not taken into consideration the relevant facts that in view of the Regulation 1975 regarding payment of extra ordinary pension, it is clear that if an employee died during the duty, he will be entitled for extra ordinary pension.  In such a situation, the petitioner submits that the order passed by the respondents is liable to be quashed.

The notices were issued and the counter affidavit has been filed.  In Para 6 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that there is no dispute to this effect  that the Superintendent of Police Lalitpur has recommended the case of the petitioner, as there was no permission to the petitioner's husband to go to another state, as such, if he died in accident it will not be treated to be on duty and as such, he is not entitled for extra ordinary pension.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and have perused the record.

From the record it is clear that the case of the petitioner was recommended by the authorities concerned.  Even the Superintendent of Police has clearly recommended the case of the petitioner's husband that he has been sent to investigate on the basis of the order issued by the competent authority and regarding visiting of the petitioner's husband, it has been entered in the general diary of the police station concerned, therefore, in my opinion, the finding recorded by the authority while rejecting the case of the petitioner is based on no evidence.  From the record it is also clear that if a person is directed to go to Jhansi to Lalitpur then he has to pass through the area  having jurisdiction of M.P. Government  and comes under the State of Madhya Pradesh Government.  The circle officer has also stated in his recommendation letter regarding the entitlement of petitioner for extra-ordinary pension that

In view of the aforesaid fact, as the relevant authority has recommended the case of the petitioner for granting of extra ordinary pension, but the respondent No.2 without assigning any reason and without verifying the fact and  records, which were before him, has passed a mechanical order without assigning any reason. Therefore, in my opinion it clearly appears that order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 13.2.2003 is an order of non application of mind and against the evidence on record.

In such a way, the order dated 13th February, 2003  (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3 is set aside and the respondent No.2 is directed to pass an order regarding entitlement of the petitioner for extra ordinary pension in view of the various reports submitted by the Station Officer of Police Station as well as Circle Officer of the district and Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur.  The respondent No.2 is further directed to pass an order within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.          




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.