IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18041 of 2010 ANRAJI DEVI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3. 21.06.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The husband of the petitioner, a retired Army personnel, was employed by the State Government in the Special Auxiliary Police. A circular of the Home Department dated 7.3.2006 provided exgratia compensation of Rs. Ten lakhs to the heirs if the death was on duty. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the circular has been explained in another directive dated 13.4.2006 that the compensation was payable in the event of casualty during “active duty”. The deceased was on duty returning from Hathidah Railway Station after dropping the Jamadar of the Police Station concerned when he died. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is submitted that the aforesaid circulars have been clarified on 9.10.2007 explaining “active duty” as death occurring during extremist activity or other non-violent events. The counter affidavit states, not denied on behalf of the petitioner, that death occurred on account of a road accident when the Police Jeep was rammed by a truck on the highway from behind. A person who dons the uniform, accepts certain risks inherent in his career. Keeping the same in mind the State Government in the special nature of the scheme engaging retired army personnel came up with a provision for providing compensation to them on account of death occurring on “active duty”. The word “active duty” has to be read and understood in the context in which they have been used. The 2 expression cannot be loosely interpreted torn out of context. A liberal interpretation doing violence to the executive intention cannot be countenanced in the law. Merely because the deceased was engaged in the Special Auxiliary Police, that does not fulfill the connotation of the term “active duty”. If a person so engaged was on duty and dies for reasons totally unconnected with the discharge of his duties, in the nature of the engagement it certainly cannot be said that he died on “active duty”. What is the connotation of the word “active duty” is explained in the policy framing the Special Auxiliary Police itself. The force had been instituted for qualitative improvement in the law & order situation in the State, to apprehend criminals and bring them to book and in order to meet the dual challenge of crime and extremism for which there was requirement of a well trained and physically fit force. The death of the deceased in a simple road accident cannot be classified as a death on “active duty”. There has to be a difference between the term „duty‟ and „active duty‟. While the former may have a larger ambit and arena for applicability, the latter has to be given a restricted interpretation. „Active duty‟ shall connote death in any one of the circumstances specified in the objects for creation of the force as occurring during action. Had the deceased been in the vehicle performing the duties of a chase to apprehend criminals/extremists and the accident may have taken place in those circumstances, different issues may have arisen for consideration. That is not the case of the petitioner. The death of the deceased was indeed unfortunate. But sympathy cannot supplant the law. Indian Highways are notorious for road mishaps. A 2009 W.H.O. report states that at least 13 people die every hour in road accident in India. In 2007, 1.14 lakh people died in 3 road mishaps. The totality rate was one of the highest in the world. It is not even known in the present case as to who was at fault the truck driver or the jeep driver. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)