HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 12442 of 2003 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Daya Prasad Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for State- respondents. 2. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits, thus, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage. 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that she happens to be the widow of late Mahendra Tiwari who was posted as a constable in 20th Battalion (B- Company), U.P., Police Arms Constabulary (P.A.C.), Azamgarh on 01.10.1984. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that her husband applied for leave and he was granted 15 days' casual leave from 16.06.1999 to 01.07.1999 by the respondent no. 3 and the writ petitioner's husband came to his village on leave for 15 days. That while the writ petitioner's husband was availing the leave in his village, it is alleged that the local police of police station Baasgaon, District Gorakhpur on 22.06.1999 came to the village of the husband of the writ petitioner in order to intercept some notorious criminals, wanted in Case No. 596 of 1998, under Sections 302/394/307 IPC who were taking shelter in one of the nearby house. The said criminal on gathering knowledge that the police had assembled to apprehend them became annoyed and in the intervening night on 27/28.06.1999 just after five days, attacked the house of the writ petitioner and killed the husband of the writ petitioner by gunshot. A first information report was lodged by the father-in-law of the writ petitioner being the father of the deceased against the said criminals in local police being FIR No. 286 of 1999, under Sections 302, 506 IPC. The writ petitioner thereafter post death of her husband preferred an application seeking for grant of extraordinary pension in view of the provisions contained under U.P. Police (Extra-ordinary Pension) Rules, 1961. Though according to the writ petitioner, the said application was recommended on 11.07.2001, the Finance Controller, U.P. Police Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Gopal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt. Sunaina Devi .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Others .....Respondent(s) Headquarter, Allahabad rejected the same. Communication whereof was made to the writ petitioner on 23.07.2021. 4. Questioning the same, the writ petitioner has been filed the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the order impugned in the writ petition cannot be sustained as the writ petitioner while was on leave but he was discharging the police duties and merely because it was a casual leave cannot be a ground to dis-entitle the extraordinary pension, particularly, when he gave his life while discharging the police duties. He submits that the Rule 3 of the said Rule as amended from time to time itself provides for the said benefits. 6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that whatever might be once the writ petitioner was availing leave then it was not open for him to have accompanied the police officials which according to the writ petitioner forced to do, particularly, while availing leave, no official duty can be performed as the duty can only be performed within the territorial limits of the police station. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 8. Facts are not in issue. It is not in issue that the writ petitioner happened to be a constable who had taken a casual leave from 16.06.1999 to 01.07.1999 and he had gone to his village. It is also not in dispute that he was shot dead in the intervening night on 27/28.06.1999. The bone of contention is whether the writ petitioner can be accorded extraordinary pension in the background of the fact that her husband died due to gunshot injuries while availing casual leave. 9. In the opinion of the Court, grant of extraordinary pension is dependent upon the rules. Once an incumbent comes within the four corners of the Rules then he/ she is entitled to the benefits of Rule 3 of the 1961 Rules which stood amended in the year 1975 which itself accords extraordinary pension who had died during an act of apprehending or attacking the criminals. It is not in dispute that the husband of the writ petitioner was on casual leave, might be claim is there that her husband was forced to accompany the other police officials while apprehending the criminals and he sustained injuries and died but once the husband of the writ petitioner was in casual leave then he is not entitled to the extraordinary pension as the WRIA No. 12442 of 2003 2 leave means, a complete leave and in absence of cancellation of leave, it would be presumed that the police official was in leave. Apart from the same, there is nothing on record to substantiate the claim of the writ petitioner that her husband was ordered/ directed by the superiors to accompany the police official while apprehending the criminals even during the period of casual leave. Moreover in absence of any challenge raised to the Rules, eligibility contained in Rule 3 of 1961 Rules, this Court is not required to delve into the said issue. 10. Accordingly, no ground is made out to interfere, the writ petition stands rejected. October 27, 2025 A. Prajapati WRIA No. 12442 of 2003 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad