AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Through the medium of this O.A., the applicant seeks redressal of her grievance by way of intervention of the Tribunal to quash the order dated 27.02.2016 passed by the respondents whereby the respondents have denied the benefit of Martyr Fund to the applicant.
Brief facts of the case are that the applicant"s husband was posted in the office of South East District, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi. On 22.11.2014, when the applicant"s husband was on his official duty, he met with an accident near Kalka Ji Bus Depot. He was shifted to AIIMS Trauma Centre where the doctor declared him brought dead. During December, 2014 to March, 2015, the respondents did not release the benefit from Martyr Fund and other benefits including pensionary benefits to the applicant.
The applicant served a Legal Notice to the respondents on 15.01.2016, which has been replied to vide the impugned order dated 27.02.2016, and the applicant was informed that she is not entitled for the benefit from Martyr Fund.
The plea of the applicant is that her husband was on duty when he met with the accident as he had been sent by respondent No.4 for some work at Nehru Place. However, for the reasons best known to them, the respondents have shown him as on off duty and have taken a stand that he was going home after performing his official duties. It is further stated in the O.A. that the applicant had a telephonic conversation with her husband at around 8 pm when he informed her that the SHO had given him work because of which he will return home only at about 11.15 pm. Again at 9 pm, the applicant"s husband met with one of her relatives, to whom he informed that the SHO has assigned some work to him at Nehru Place.
The applicant avers that there is a "Shabashi" entry, which has been mentioned in the register on 22.11.2014 i.e. on the date of the death of applicant"s husband whereas in the entire year, no
Shabashi entry was registered for any of the Constables/Head Constables posted there. The applicant apprehends that the respondents have created wrong records/entry to show that her husband was not on duty. She states that the Martyr Fund was a contribution of each member of the Delhi Police of which her husband was a member, and the same cannot be denied to her.
In their counter-affidavit, the respondents state that the applicant was on his way to his government accommodation on his motor cycle when he was hit by a truck due to which he got badly injured and unfortunately died. His case for financial assistance from Delhi Police Martyr Fund to his family was duly forwarded by the respondents on 16.01.2015. While processing the proposal, the Police Headquarter observed that the late Head Constable Sh. Ashok Kumar had departed for his residence and on the way he met with an accident. It is stated that S.O.NO. 421/2013 provides that financial assistance from Delhi Police Martyrs" Fund is only granted to the family of the deceased police personnel while performing government duty. It does not include the journey from home/other place to place of duty or from place of duty to home/other place. Hence, the proposal was rejected.
During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant vociferously argued that the respondents have falsified the records in case of the applicant"s husband. He stated that the applicant was following the directions given to him by SHO and was on official duty. The respondents have tampered with the records by making an entry of duty subsequent to the death of the late Sh. Ashok Kumar so that any future/further benefit, which may accrue to him, can be denied to him. He emphasized that he is entitled for benefits under Delhi Police Rules issued in the Standing Order No. 421, since he was on official duty at the time of the death.
The learned counsel for the respondents Ms. Sumedha Sharma produced DD register in the Court where the entry for 22.11.2014 is available. She stated that the respondents respect the committed service put in by the applicant"s husband and even referred his case for grant of benefits under Mrtyr Fund, but it was turned down due to the fact that the deceased officer was off duty at the time, the unfortunate accident occurred.
I have gone through the facts of the case and find that there is nothing on record to support the contention of the applicant that late Sh. Ashok Kumar had been sent on duty by the SHO concerned. The DD No. 76-B dated 22.11.2014, a copy of which has been filed by the respondents and which has been duly verified by the SHO reads as under:-
"HC Parminder No.645/SE Arrival after area Patrolling
At 10.05 PM it is lodged that I HC alongwith staff HC Ashok 618/SE, HC Vikash 3298/SE, Ct.Khem Raj 3898/SE after beat patrolling have arrived at Police Station and all above staff relieved from duty has been sent "Shabashi" to their Gov. quarters after proper directions. By HC. Verified.
Sd/
S.H.O.
Police Station
Badar Pur, New Delhi."
This entry has been strongly contested by the learned counsel for the applicant, who states that this entry was made by Head Constable Parminder stating that late Sh. Ashok Kumar along with the other two police personnel was relieved from duty and sent "Shabashi" to their government quarters after proper directions. He submitted that this is an unusual entry, which has not been entered in respect of any other police personnel as can be verified from the register maintained by the concerned police station.
I have perused the "B" Roznamcha Register D.D.No.-45B (Book No. 14803) dated from14.11.2014 to 23.11.2014 submitted by the respondents. The terminology used in most of the columns is"aamad, "ravangi", "waapsi" and "itlah aamad" etc. indicating the nature of duty performed by the police personnel. No specific "shabashi" entry could be seen against any of the other columns. The SHO Police Station Badarpur, vide his affidavit dated 04.09.2017 has certified that no separate register is being maintained for departure of "Shabashi" i.e. (Duty Taariq) except DD entry in Roznamcha.
Be that as it may, in my view, the apprehension of the applicant regarding manipulation of records in case of her late husband is not supported by any evidence. The respondents did try to process the case of the applicant for grant of benefit under Martyr Fund but unfortunately, it did not come within the laid down parameters of the Standing Orders of Delhi Police. No specifics regarding any ulterior motive or mala fide are forthcoming from the records. Mere mention of "Shabashi" in respect of HC Ashok Kumar and its absence before other names cannot be construed as a conspiracy to deprive the applicant from the benefit of Martys Fund.
I am, therefore, unable to accede to the request of the applicant, as prayed for in the O.A. The same is dismissed being devoid of merit. No costs.