2019 (12) TMI 384 - HC - Indian Laws

Whether the writ petitioner could have been given benefit of grant of extraordinary pension under Rule 3 of the U. P. Police (Extraordinary Pension) (First Amendment) Rules, 1975? - HELD THAT - For the purpose of grant of extraordinary pension under Rule 3 of 1975 Rules, death has to result directly from a fatal situation/contingency faced by the police personnel concerned in the line of duty in a hostile environment akin to the listed category/class. The appellant/writ petitioner s husband may have died on duty, but his death was due to natural causes and certainly not due to a fatal situation/contingency faced by a police personnel in the line of duty in a hostile environment akin to the listed category/class as specified in Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules. The legislature, in its wisdom, would have simply stated that any death occurring during the course of duty would entitle the family of the concerned police personnel to claim extraordinary pension in terms of the Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules. That possibly could not have been the intention of the legislature by any stretch of imagination in the facts of the instant case. The concerned authority of the State is directed to enforce Rule 3 of the Rules of 1975 strictly with an even hand and not allow similar claims to surface or grant such claims surreptitiously - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for extraordinary pension under Rule 3 of the U.P. Police (Extraordinary Pension) (First Amendment) Rules, 1975.
2. Interpretation of fatal situations/contingencies under Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules.
3. Application of ejusdem generis principle in statutory interpretation.
4. Legislative intent behind specifying contingencies for extraordinary pension.

Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Extraordinary Pension:
The case involved a widow seeking extraordinary pension under Rule 3 of the U.P. Police (Extraordinary Pension) (First Amendment) Rules, 1975, following the death of her husband, a police constable. The deceased had suffered a heart attack while on duty, leading to his demise. The court examined whether the widow was entitled to extraordinary pension under the specified rules.

2. Interpretation of Fatal Situations/Contingencies:
The court analyzed the provisions of Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules, which outline the circumstances under which extraordinary pension can be granted. The rule mentions specific fatal situations such as death while fighting dacoits or armed criminals. The court emphasized that the death must be directly linked to such hostile environments to qualify for extraordinary pension.

3. Application of Ejusdem Generis Principle:
In interpreting the statutory provisions, the court applied the ejusdem generis principle. This principle dictates that when a general term follows specific ones, it should be interpreted to include only items of the same class. The court reasoned that the widow's claim did not fall within the class of fatal situations specified in Rule 3, as her husband's death was due to natural causes and not a hostile environment as outlined in the rule.

4. Legislative Intent and Enforcement:
The court delved into the legislative intent behind specifying the contingencies for extraordinary pension. It highlighted that a broad interpretation of the rule would undermine the specific fatal situations listed. The court directed the state authority to enforce Rule 3 strictly and prevent unwarranted claims for extraordinary pension, ensuring consistency in the application of the rule.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the Special Appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the specified criteria for granting extraordinary pension under Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules. The judgment underscored the need for a clear connection between the death of a police personnel and the specified fatal situations to qualify for such benefits.