Extraordinary pension under police rules was limited to hostile duty-related deaths; illness-related death on duty did not qualify.

Rule 3 of the U.P. Police (Extraordinary Pension) (First Amendment) Rules, 1975 was confined to deaths arising from the specific duty-related contingencies listed in the rule, read by ejusdem generis as hostile or comparable service risks. A death caused by illness after a heart attack while on duty was treated as a natural cause, not a fatal contingency attributable to the discharge of official duty in the required sense. Extraordinary pension was therefore not admissible on those facts, and denial of the benefit was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether extraordinary pension was payable under Rule 3 of the U.P. Police (Extraordinary Pension) (First Amendment) Rules, 1975, for the death of a police constable caused by illness after a heart attack while on duty.

Analysis: Rule 3 was held to cover only deaths caused in the contingencies specified by the rule, namely deaths arising from hostile duty situations of the same class as those expressly mentioned. The general words in the rule were read in the light of the specific instances preceding them and were confined by the principle of ejusdem generis. A death due to natural causes, even if occurring during duty, was held not to be attributable to the discharge of official duty in the sense required by the rule and could not be equated with a fatal duty-related contingency in a hostile environment.

Conclusion: Extraordinary pension under Rule 3 was not admissible on the facts, and the denial of such benefit was upheld.

---