S.U. Khan, J.@mdashShri Uttam Singh - husband of the petitioner was constable in UP. Police. According to the petitioner he suffered heart
attack while on duty and thereafter died. Petitioner applied for extra-ordinary pension which has been refused. The allegation of the petitioner is
that her husband felt pain in chest while he was on duty on 15.11.2003 and he was referred to civil hospital where it was detected that he had
suffered heart attack. He died in hospital on the same date i.e. 15.11.2003. Finance & Accounts Officer, U.P. made a recommendation on
26.9.2005 to Deputy Secretary, Government of U.P. Home (Police) Lucknow for grant of extra ordinary promotion. However, it was not
accepted and was rejected through order dated 11.8.2005 copy of which is Annexure-13 to the writ petition. Thereafter detailed order was
passed on 23.11.2006 Chief Finance & Accounts Officer, U.P. Police Head Quarter, Allahabad refused the claim and held that it was not
covered by U.P. Police (Extra Ordinary Pension) Rules, 1961 as amended in 1975.
2. I do not find any error in the impugned order. Extra ordinary pension means full pay till the date on which the incumbent, if alive, had remained in
service. It is admissible only If death is related with the duty. There is no evidence that the duty assigned to the deceased was more strenuous than
normally assigned to holders of the same post. The death of the husband of the petitioner as a result of heart attack was unfortunate however, it
cannot be said that it was directly related with the duty. Nothing was brought on record to suggest that petitioner suffered heart attack due to
strenuous duty.
3. Rule-3 of the Pension Rules, (without proviso) as amended in 1975 is quoted below:
3. These rules shall apply to all the police officers and men (gazetted and non-gazetted both) whether employed in a permanent or temporary
capacity under the rule making control of the Governor, who are killed or who die in encounters with dacoits or armed criminals or with foreign
hostiles, or, in the course of performance of any other duty.
4. The principles governing grant of compensation for personal injury (including death) caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the
course of his employment as provided under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 may be taken into consideration while deciding the question of
extraordinary pension.
5. Supreme Court in Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Another, has held that employer is liable to pay
compensation under Workmen Compensation Act to an employee, who dies of heart attack, only if it is established that death was caused by
reason of failure of heart because of stress and strain of working.
6. In the instant case, there being no such position, petitioner is not entitled to extra-ordinary pension.
7. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed.
