Poisoning Does Not Qualify For Extraordinary Pension; Allahabad High Court Rejects Appeal In Sub-Inspector's Death By Poisoning Case

Background

Smt. Poonam Tyagi filed an appeal seeking extraordinary pension after the death of her husband, Sub-Inspector Ashok Kumar Tyagi, who died of poisoning while on duty in 2001. Two viscera reports showed traces of Aluminum Phosphide and Ethyl Alcohol, respectively. Tyagi's widow claimed that since her husband died during the performance of his duties, she was entitled to extraordinary pension under the Uttar Pradesh Police (Extraordinary Pension) Rules, 1961. The Home Department rejected her claim, leading to this appeal.

Arguments

The appellant argued that her husband was on duty when he fell ill and died, thus qualifying her for extraordinary pension under Rule 3 of the Rules. She emphasized that her husband's death occurred in the course of his official duties, making the denial of pension unjustified. Conversely, the State contended that Rule 3 applies only in specific circumstances, such as death during combat or other hazardous duties, and not merely because an officer dies while on duty. The respondents argued that the cause of death—poisoning—was unrelated to the duties Tyagi was performing at the time, and thus, the claim for extraordinary pension was invalid under the Rules.

Court's Reasoning

The court focused on the interpretation of Rule 3 of the Extraordinary Pension Rules, which provides for pension in the case of police personnel dying in the line of duty, particularly while performing dangerous tasks such as fighting criminals or insurgents. Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, the court held that when a general term is preceded by specific instances (e.g., death while fighting dacoits or armed criminals), the general term must be understood in light of those specific instances. Therefore, the phrase “death while performing other duties” must be interpreted narrowly and linked to the listed hazardous conditions.

The court found no evidence that Tyagi's death was caused by any perilous condition connected to his duties. The viscera reports, which showed traces of poison, did not establish any causal link between Tyagi's investigative work and his poisoning. The court reasoned that the mere fact that Tyagi was on duty when he fell ill was insufficient to meet the criteria of Rule 3. The death had to result from a dangerous event related to his official responsibilities, which was not the case here. Furthermore, the substance found in the viscera reports—Ethyl Alcohol and Aluminum Phosphide—did not suggest any occupational hazard or duty-related cause.

In Gyanwati Devi v. State of U.P. (Special Appeal No. 33 of 2019), the court had held that extraordinary pension is not applicable for deaths resulting from natural causes or unrelated incidents, even if the officer was on duty. Similarly, in Malti Devi v. State of U.P., the court had clarified that only deaths directly linked to hazardous duties would qualify for extraordinary pension. The court reiterated that Rule 3 requires a clear connection between the cause of death and the officer's duties, which was absent in Tyagi's case. Thus, the court dismissed the appeal, holding that Tyagi's death from poisoning did not meet the criteria for extraordinary pension.

Decided on: 15-10-2024

Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:69395-DB

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Sheshnath Bhardwaj

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. C.S.C., Mr. Gopal Kumar Srivastava

Click Here To Read/Download The Order