Madras High Court
N.Bhuvaneswari vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 April, 2014
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.04.2014
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.25525 of 2009
N.Bhuvaneswari .. Petitioner
-vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Home Secretary
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Director General of Police
Chennai 600 004
3. Inspector General of Police (Operation)
Chennai 600 028 .. Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, by calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 12.11.2009 made in Rc.No.127428/TNPBF(2)/2008 and also the 2nd respondent's proceedings dated 25.9.2009 made in Rc.No.127428/TNPBF(2)/2008, quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to sanction a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as financial assistance to the petitioner as per the Tamil Nadu Police Insurance Scheme Rules for police officers and personnel.
For Petitioner :: Mr.S.R.Raghunathan
For Respondents :: Mr.R.Ravichandran
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by Mrs.N.Bhuvaneswari, W/o late S.Nithiyanantham, who died on 1.6.2008 while he was travelling in train on patrol duty from Katpadi to Jolarpettai along with eight other Police Constables at about 7.30 p.m., when the train was about to reach Jolarpettai. The claim of the petitioner shows that when the petitioner's husband and other police personnel were on patrol duty on 1.6.2008, during the course of employment, they were travelling and doing their official duty, while so, Mr.S.Nithiyanantham, Sub Inspector of Police in Tamil Nadu Commando Force, Marutham developed chest pain at about 7.30 p.m., when the train was nearing Jolarpettai railway station. However, after getting down at Jolarpettai railway station, when the petitioner's husband was taken to a local hospital, unfortunately, there was no doctor in the local hospital, therefore, he was again taken to one Dr.Kalivarathan of Thirupathur. The said doctor once again advised him to go to a Government hospital. But, unfortunately, before reaching the Government hospital at Thirupathur, at about 10.30 p.m., the petitioner's husband died. This was also confirmed by the FIR and the communication issued by the Director General of Police dated 25.9.2009. Immediately after the death of the petitioner's husband, First Information Report was also lodged in FIR No.154 of 2008 on 1.6.2008 at Jolarpettai Railway Police Station. Subsequently, post-mortem was also performed on her husband's body and the post-mortem certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, Thirupathur and the First Information Report clearly show that the petitioner's husband died while he was discharging his duty. Therefore, the case of death of the petitioner's husband is covered under the Tamil Nadu Police Insurance Scheme Rules for Police Officers and Personnel. As per the rules, the petitioner is also entitled to receive a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the accidental death of her husband. Therefore, number of representations were made to the police authorities seeking the above said amount as per the scheme covered in G.O.Ms.No.1160, Home (Pol.XII) Department dated 18.8.99, which came into force from 1.4.97, but the respondents have not come forward to pay the amount even as per the above said Government Order, as a result, the petitioner sent a representation dated 11.6.2009 through her counsel to all the respondents with a request to take immediate steps to grant the financial assistance as per the said G.O.Ms.No.1160. A reading of the Government Order clearly shows that the Government, after disbanding the Group Insurance Scheme, formulated a new Group Insurance Scheme for granting financial assistance to the police officers and personnel and the scheme also clearly says that any accidental death while travelling by car, boat, train would be also covered. But in the present case, the First Information Report dated 1.6.2008 registered at Jolarpettai Railway Police Station clearly shows that the petitioner's husband Mr.S.Nithiyanantham died on 1.6.2008 at about 10.30 p.m., when he was on duty along with eight other personnel. In spite of the fact that the death of the petitioner's husband is covered by G.O.Ms.No.1160 dated 18.8.99, there was no response or progress on the petitioner's representation, resultantly, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.No.13824 of 2009 seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pass orders on the representation dated 11.6.2009. This Court, taking note of the plight of the petitioner, by order dated 22.7.2009, disposing off the writ petition, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.6.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks. In the light of the above order, when the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu in his proceedings bearing Rc.No.127428/TNPBF.2/2008 dated 25.9.2009, having considered the case of the petitioner sympathetically, again by citing the Government letter No.64983/Pol.12/2009-3 dated 2.11.2009, informed the petitioner that since Rs.1,50,000/- was already paid under the family benefit fund for the death of her husband, she was not eligible for any amount of financial assistance under the Tamil Nadu Police Insurance Scheme, since the above said claim is meant for only accidental death, but her husband's death was natural due to heart disease.
2. Assailing the above order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the G.O.Ms.No.1160 dated 18.8.99 clearly mentions the purpose for which the Tamil Nadu Police Insurance Scheme Rules was enacted stating that the accidental death means death while travelling by car, boat, train, the respondents cannot refuse to bring the case of the petitioner under the above said scheme. After reading the scope of the rules, he has explained before this Court that the police officers and the police personnel of Tamil Nadu serving in the General Police, Special Task Force, Commando Force, Commando School, Swift Action Force and Core Cell who die including accidental death or permanently incapacitated or partially disabled in pursuit of their duties, are also covered under the scheme. Adding further, he has stated that when the scheme clearly says that the police personnel in the General Police, Special Task Force and Commando Force etc., who were already placed under suspension with effect from 1.4.97 till they resume duty would not be able to enjoy the benefit of the scheme along with the police personnel who are on leave without allowances, the case of the petitioner has to be necessarily covered under the scheme. Concluding his arguments, he has also pressed into service a judgment of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Kovai v. Nagaraj and 3 others, 2008-2-L.W.189, for the proposition that the death of an employee who is covered under the insurance scheme due to severe heart attack, while being taken in ambulance to the hospital, should also be construed as a death taken place during the course of employment.
3. Opposing the above prayer, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that admittedly the petitioner's husband late S.Nithiyanantham, who was serving at the relevant point of time as Sub Inspector of Police in the Tamil Nadu Commando Force, died while he was travelling in train on patrol duty from Katpadi to Jolarpettai along with eight other police personnel. When the train was heading towards Jolarpettai, the deceased-Nithiyanantham told that he developed chest pain and he also consumed some tablets kept in his pocket. After the train reached Jolarpettai, the police personnel also took him to a local hospital, but, unfortunately, as there was no doctor in the local hospital, he was gain taken to Thirupathur. However, on the advise of one doctor Mr.Kalivarathan at Thirupathur, the petitioner's husband Mr.S.Nithiyanantham was taken to Government hospital, Thirupathur at about 10.30 p.m., where the doctors declared him as dead. Therefore, as per the rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.1160, Home (Pol.XII) Department dated 18.8.99, the death due to strike and riot, unprovoked assault, law and order situation, crime detection and investigation and similar dangerous situation experienced during the normal duties of the police personnel are alone eligible for consideration of the claim. But the death of the petitioner's husband being a natural one, was not covered in any of the categories as provided under G.O.Ms.No.1160 dated 18.8.99 or in any other rule, therefore, the petitioner cannot press her claim under the Tamil Nadu Police Insurance Scheme. Adding further, he has stated that the respondents had already disbursed the death benefits of more than Rs.7,00,000/- to the petitioner apart from waiving the dues of her husband for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. Moreover, she has been paid with the monthly pension of Rs.10,000/- per month and the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- under the Insurance Scheme is totally unsustainable, hence, the prayer should be rejected. Concluding his arguments, he has stated that although the Director General of Police, showing pity on the petitioner, made a recommendation to the Government in Rc.No.127428/TNPBF.2/2008 dated 25.9.2009, the Government, considering the fact that the death of the petitioner's husband has not been covered under the G.O.Ms.No.1160 dated 18.8.09, rejected the request by letter No.64983/Pol.12/2009-9 dated 2.11.2009. In view of that, the impugned order dated 12.11.2009 has been passed. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioner should not be entertained.
4. This Court is unable to countenance the arguments of the learned Additional Government Pleader or the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit. Admittedly, paragraph-3 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, which is extracted hereunder, 3. It is submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and hence liable to be dismissed. Further, it is submitted that absolutely there is no merit and substance in the above writ petition. Further by virtue of substantial facts has to be determined which requires lot of evidence which cannot be adverted by this Hon'ble Court by way of writ petition. I submitted that on 01.06.2008 Late S.Nithiyanantham, Sub Inspector of Police in Tamil Nadu Commando Force while on Train patrol duty from Katpadi to Jolarpet along with 8 other police constables at about 7.30 PM, when the train ahead of 7 km to reach Jolarpet Tr.Nithiyanantham has told that he has developed with chest pain and he consumed some tables which he had kept in his pocket. After the arrival at Jolarpet the police personnel took him to a local hospital. As there was no doctor there, he was taken to Thiruppattur. On the advise of Dr.Kalivarathan, Thirupattur, the petitioner's husband Tr.S.Nithiyanantham (expired) was taken to Govt.Hospital, Thiruppattur at about 10.30 p.m., where the doctors declared him as dead. clearly shows that when the petitioner's husband late S.Nithiyanantham, one of the Sub Inspectors of Police employed in the Tamil Nadu Commando Force, was travelling on train to discharge his patrol duty from Katpadi to Jolarpettai along with eight other police personnel, unfortunately, at about 7.30 p.m., on 1.6.2008 when the train was heading towards Jolarpettai, the deceased informed his colleagues that he developed chest pain. Immediately his colleagues advised him to consume some tablets which he had kept in his pocket. After consuming the tablets, when the train reached Jolarpettai railway station, the police personnel, who were also travelling along with him, took him to a local hospital. But, unfortunately, there was no doctor to attend the petitioner's husband. However, on the advise of one Dr.Kalivarathan, Thirupathur, the petitioner's husband was taken to Government Hospital, Thirupattur at about 10.30 p.m., but the doctors attending the petitioner's husband declared his death. One another document, namely, the First Information Report No.154 of 2008 registered on 1.6.2008, also clearly shows that the petitioner's husband died while he was discharging his duty. Therefore, the question is whether the petitioner's claim is covered under G.O.Ms.No.1160, Home (Pol.XII) Department dated 18.8.89. A conjoint reading of the scope of the Government Order and the definition clause clearly shows that if any police official mets with any accidental death while travelling by car, boat, train or any other mode of conveyance, the nominee or the legal heir of the deceased is entitled to get the benefit conferred under the G.O.Ms.No.1160. In fact, paragraph-3 regarding the extent of application of the scheme as given under the said Government Order also clearly says that only under two situations, the benefit of the scheme would not be applied. The said two situations are also extracted as under:-
This scheme shall not apply to
(a) The police personnel in the General Police, Special Task Force, Commando Force, Commando School, Swift Action Force and Core Cell who were already placed under suspension with effect from 01.04.1997 till they resume duty and
(b) Police personnel who are on leave without allowances or extraordinary leave or not on duty for any reasons.
5. When the scheme is clear and explicit to make the applicability of the benefit and the case of the petitioner is not covered under the above two situations (a) & (b), this Court, by taking note of the proceedings issued by the Director General of Police dated 25.9.2009 in Rc.No.127428/TNPBF.2/2008, wherein the Inspector General of Police (Operations), Chennai, in his letter dated 27.8.2009 addressed to the Director General of Police, made a request to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically and to sanction the eligible amount from the corpus fund created by G.O.Ms.No.1160, Home (Pol.XII) Department dated 18.8.99, but, unfortunately, the Government in Letter No.64983/Pol.12/2009-3 dated 2.11.2009 has not considered the case of the petitioner, is unable to accept the reasons given in the impugned order. Accordingly, by setting aside the impugned order, this Court directs the respondents 1 and 2 to sanction the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as financial assistance to the petitioner as per the Tamil Nadu Police Insurance Scheme, based on the recommendation made by the Director General of Police in his Letter Rc.No.127428/TNPBF.2/2008 dated 25.9.2009, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Needless to mention that if the amount as ordered above not paid within the time specified, the petitioner is entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% from the date of writ petition till the date of realisation.
Index : yes 25.04.2014
Internet : yes
ss
Office to Note: Issue order copy by 13.5.2014.
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Home Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009
2. The Director General of Police
Chennai 600 004
3. The Inspector General of Police (Operation)
Chennai 600 028
T.RAJA, J.
ss
W.P.No.25525 of 2009
25.04.2014