Jharkhand High Court
Most.Subhadra Devi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 14 June, 2017
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
W.P. (S) No. 2387 of 2008
(In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
----
Most. Subhadra Devi, W/o Late Chandrapal Singh, R/o Vill, Chandlaso
P.O. Henjala, P.S. Kuru, Dist. Lohardaga, Jharkhand
... ... ... ... .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Ranchi
2.The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3.The Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4.The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga
5. The District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga,
6. The Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga,
... ... ... ... Respondents
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sahi, J.C. to A.A.G.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
----
By Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the part of the order dated 14.08.2007 passed by the respondent no. 4 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lakhs) and other benefits as per the policy of the State Government contained in letter no. 350 dated 21.03.2001 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to reconsider and grant benefits to the petitioner in view of the policy contained in letter no. 350 dated 21.03.2001, as the husband of the petitioner was killed by the extremists/naxalites.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 20.05.2002, the husband of the petitioner who was an Assistant Teacher in Government Middle School, Henjala, Kuru was killed by the naxalites. An F.I.R. was also lodged at the instance of the brother of the deceased which was -2- registered as Kuru P.S. Case No. 47 of 2002 dated 21.03.2002. Thereafter the son of the deceased was provided compassionate appointment as Assistant Teacher vide letter no. 249 dated 16.02.2004 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga. The respondent no. 6 also recommended for grant of compensation and other benefits to the petitioner vide his letter no. 624 dated 20.07.2006. However, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (S) No. 3333 of 2007 for issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider her application for payment of compensation under the existing policy/circular of the State Government framed for victim of naxalites attacks. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 12.07.2007 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, to consider the petitioner's claim and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. In compliance of the order dated 12.07.2007 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3333 of 2007, the respondent no. 4 (Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga) after hearing the petitioner, passed the order dated 14.08.2007 rejecting the claim of the petitioner, for payment of compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lakhs) which has been put to challenge by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, vide its policy contained in letter no. 5-64/2000 dated 21.03.2001, has made a provision for grant of compensation and other benefits to the government employees who died in naxal/extremist attacks in course of discharging their official duties. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the -3- petitioner that in view of the provisions of the said policy of the State Government contained in letter no. 5-64/2000 dated 21.03.2001, a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rs. Ten lakhs) should have been granted to the petitioner being the dependent of her husband who was killed in naxalite attack. It is also submitted that the respondent no. 4 committed a serious error in passing the impugned order dated 14.08.2007 in granting compensation of Rs. 50,000/- only to the petitioner. Respondent no. 4 did not appreciate the purpose of the policy of the government contained in letter no. 350 dated 21.03.2001 and thereby refused to grant compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as has been provided in the said policy.
5. Per contra, the J.C. to learned A.A.G. while relying on the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 6 submits that the petitioner not being satisfied with the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 4 filed a contempt petition being Cont. (Civil) No. 788 of 2007. In course of contempt proceeding, a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation was handed over by the state counsel to the counsel for the petitioner which has already been received by the petitioner. The said fact is apparent from the order dated 14.03.2008 passed in Cont. (Civil) No. 788 of 2007. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the State that on perusal of the order dated 14.08.2007, it would be clearly evident that the murder of the husband of the petitioner was committed in his house due to his personal dispute with co-villagers and therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner was killed in a naxal attack while he was discharging official duty. The case of the petitioner is not covered by the policy of the State Government contained in letter no. 350 dated 21.03.2001, as the same is confined to the cases in which any police personnel/government employee is killed in naxal attack in discharge of -4- official duty. In fact, the case of the petitioner is covered by the policy of the erstwhile State of Bihar contained in letter no. 1972/C dated 09.08.2000 which was adopted by the State of Jharkhand after its creation w.e.f. 15.11.2000. As per the said policy, there has been a provision of grant of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the dependent of any person who is killed in naxalite attack. It has also been provided in the said policy contained in letter no. 1972/C dated 09.08.2000 that the dependent of the deceased shall also be provided government employment. In the present case, the son of the deceased has already been given compassionate appointment vide letter no. 249 dated 16.02.2004 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga. Moreover, in Cont. Case (Civil) No. 788 of 2007, the petitioner has received the amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. In view of the said fact, the impugned order dated 14.08.2007 warrants no interference by this Court.
6. The present writ petition is thus confined to the consideration of only two government policies contained in (i) letter no. 1972/C dated 09.08.2000 and (ii) letter no. 350 dated 21.03.2001 which have been brought on record by the parties.
7. Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and considering all the relevant documents placed on record, it appears that the respondent no. 4 vide impugned order dated 14.08.2007 has duly considered the factual aspect of the matter and arrived at a conclusion that the husband of the petitioner late Chandrapal Singh was murdered in naxalite attack in his house. The said fact is evident from the F.I.R. and the supervision note of S.P. Lohardaga (a copy of the supervision note of Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga dated 21.05.2002 is tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner which is -5- taken on record). Thus, it cannot be said that the husband of the petitioner was killed in naxalite attack while he was discharging official duty, rather, the cause of murder has been said to be certain personal enmity with co-villagers.
8. On comparative perusal of the policy contained in letter no. 1972/C dated 09.08.2000 and in letter no. 350 dated 21.03.2001, I find that the policy contained in letter no. 350 dated 21.03.2001 has been framed specifically for the police personnel/government officials who are killed in naxal attack while discharging their official duties. However, the policy contained in letter no. 1972/C dated 09.08.2000 is a general policy meant for all the victims of naxal attack. The husband of the petitioner having not been killed in naxal attack while discharging his official duty, the same will not be covered by the special policy as contained in letter no. 350 dated 21.03.2001. Rather, the husband of the petitioner was killed in his house due to his personal enmity with co-villagers and therefore, the case of the petitioner would be covered by the policy contained in letter no. 1972/C dated 09.08.2000.
9. The respondent no. 4 rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rs. Ten lakhs) in terms with the provisions of the policy of the State Government contained in letter no. 350 dated 21.03.2001, as the said policy is confined to such cases in which the government servants including the police officials are killed in naxalite/extremist attack in discharge of official duty. As such, the respondent no. 4 rightly decided to make payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner, as the case of the petitioner is covered by the policy of the erstwhile State of Bihar contained in letter no. 1972/C dated 09.08.2000 which was adopted by the State of Jharkhand after its -6- creation w.e.f. 15th November 2000 during the period in question. Moreover, as per the said policy dated 09.08.2000, the son of the petitioner Sri Bhagwan Singh has already been appointed as Asst. Teacher on compassionate ground vide letter no. 249 dated 16.02.2004 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 14.08.2007 passed by the respondent no. 4. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 14/06/2017 Binit/A.F.R.