IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15155 of 2010 1. Smt. Manju Singh W/O Late Mathura Prasad Singh R/O Mohalla- Gayatri Nagar, Amethi, Behind Vimal Picture Hall, P.S.- Amethi, Distt.- Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Department Of Home (Police), Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director General Of Police, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Additional Director General Of Police (Law And Order) Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Inspector General Of Police, Muzaffarpur Range, Muzaffarpur 5. The Superintendent Of Police, Muzaffarpur ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Bibhakar Tiwary, Adv. For the State:- Mr. S. Arshad Alam, Adv. Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, Adv. ------------- 6. 05.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The husband of the petitioner was re- engaged as Special Auxiliary Police (S.A.P.) by the State after his discharge from the Army. He has been deceased on 18.5.2008. Contending that death on was active duty the petitioner seeks the compensation amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (ten lacs.) in terms of Clause E (2) of the guidelines creating the SAP and regulating their services. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased was on patrol duty traveling in a police vehicle which stopped at a hotel by the road side. The deceased stepped out the vehicle for crossing the road to answer the call of nature. He 2 was hit by an Ambassador car being driven negligently. Since the deceased was on duty and death occurred during the same the petitioner is entitled to the compensation amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Clause E (2) of the guideline. Recommendations were made by the Superintendent of Police on 17.7.2008, 18.11.2008 and 13.1.2009 and approved by the I.G., Muzaffarpur on 31.3.2009. It has wrongly been cancelled by the impugned order dated 15.6.2010 referring to a communication dated 31.5.2010 to which the petitioner does not have access. Counsel for the State has placed before the Court a Xerox copy of the communication dated 31.5.2010, let the same be kept on record. Counter affidavit has also been filed. The respondents contend that death of the petitioner was not on active duty. The compensation as above was payable only in the event of death occurring during anti insurgency operations or in course of other violent events. The death on duty may be unfortunate. But any claim for compensation shall be regulated by the policy. Clause E (2) of the policy reads as follows:- “Compensation in the event 3 of casualty during active duty will be payable as per the entitlement currently applicable in the State Police i.e. Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten lacs.). However, there will be no provision of employment to the kin of the deceased.” (emphasis added) The respondents have placed on record as Annexure-E the policy of the State Police in this regard dated 10.10.2005. Clause 4(1) of which reads that in the event of death on duty in anti insurgency operation or in other violent events Rs. 10,00,000/- shall be payable as compensation. This policy further provides for compassionate appointment. The SAP was created as part of a special drive for bringing criminals and known offenders to book including challenges posed by left wing extremists. The need was felt for a well trained and physically fit force experienced in counter insurgency operations. Superannuated personnel from the Armed Forces were considered suitable for the purpose. However, the benefit of compassionate appointment was not to be extended. The core of the issue shall be the meaning, scope and extent of the words “casualty during active duty”. The husband of the petitioner was on patrol duty on a police vehicle which parked by the 4 road side near a hotel on the highway. The deceased stepped out of the vehicle when he was hit by another speeding vehicle traveling on the high way. A loose interpretation of the words “casualty during active duty” may bring him within the ambit of the Clause. But that may amount to ignoring or reading down the words “active” and substituting the Clause to read only as “casualty during duty”. It is not for the Court to twist and interpret the language of the Policy. Keeping in mind the nature and purpose of engagement of SAP personnel there can be no doubt that the words “casualty during active duty” has to be read in its normal meaning as restricted to death occurring while discharging duties in anti insurgency operations or other violent events of crime and of law and order. Death is a fact of life whether the person is on duty or not. Those who don the uniform take a greater risk for life by death on duty in the larger interest of the society so that peace and tranquility is maintained in the society. They lay down their life for a social cause in the larger interest. It is a sacrifice made by them unmindful of the travails that may visit their family. Keeping these aspects in mind there can be no doubt that the term “casualty 5 during active duty” was never intended to have a loose definition or interpretation. Each word in the policy shall have to be interpreted strictly. A handsome compensation was considered an expression of gratitude by the society for the sacrifice made by the individual. Benevolence only because it relates to a claim which can be raised only after death shall not justify the Court reading into the policy based on sympathy something which may not have been contemplated. Sounding a note of caution on relief based upon sympathy the Supreme Court has observed in (2009) 16 SCC 208 (Director, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Hari Om Enterprises) at Pragraph-38 as follows:- “38…This Court, however, also put a note of caution that no order should be passed only on sympathy or sentiment.” The mere fact that the deceased was on duty in the larger sense of the term shall not be sufficient to entitle the petitioner for the compensation. The policy regulating SAP read with the Government policy dated 12.11.2005 prohibits grant of compensation in the present circumstances. The communication dated 31.5.2010 only reiterates the 6 same. The calamity which has befallen the petitioner cannot be sufficient justification on sympathy for the Court to read the policy in any other manner. It cannot be said that he suffered a road accident in the larger social cause contributing to peace and serenity in the society. The petitioner has a remedy under the Motor Vehicle Act before the Claims Tribunal for the accidental death of her husband allegedly by a vehicle driven rashly and negligently. The Court finds it difficult to grant any relief to the petitioner by issuance of mandamus for compensation. The application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)