Jharkhand High Court
Sunaina Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 April, 2022
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4617 of 2021
1. Sunaina Devi
2. Kailash Sah ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Jaguar (Special Task
Force), Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. The Accountant-cum-Head Clerk, Jharkhand Jaguar (Special Task
Force), Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi
5. Chanchal Devi ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Prem Mardi, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. Rahul Saboo, SC-I
-----
Order No. 05 Dated: 18.04.2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed to change the name of district mentioned in the address of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 as "Ranchi" in place of "Giridih".
Office is directed to make necessary correction in the address portion of the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing sanction order as contained in memo no. 6597 dated 05.10.2021 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) issued by the Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Jaguar (STF), Ranchi to the extent of giving the petitioners only 25% of the lump-sum amount as death benefit of their deceased son whereas the respondent no. 5, who is the widow of the deceased, has been given 75% of the same. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to make payment to the petitioners in equal proportion of the death compensation of their son.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the parents of one Hardwar Sah, who was posted in Jaguar Camp, Jharkhand Jaguar, Village-Tendar, Ratu, Ranchi and unfortunately on 04.03.2021, he got martyred during an operation against extremists in Toklo Police Station under Chaibasa district. The respondent no. 2 vide order as contained in memo no. 6597 dated 2 05.10.2021 has apportioned 25% of the lump-sum amount as death benefit to the petitioners according to the scheme of the Government of Jharkhand in which the total salary is calculated from the date of death till the date of retirement and 75% of the same has been given to the respondent no. 5. It is further submitted that the marriage between the deceased and the respondent no. 5 was solemnized on 28.06.2012 and when he came to know that the respondent no. 5 had illicit relationship with a relative namely, Rahul Kumar Saw (son of the brother-in-law of the uncle of the deceased), he filed a complaint case before the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi being Complaint Case No. 4999 of 2020 under Section 497 of IPC, which is still pending. He also filed a Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 430 of 2020 seeking divorce from the respondent no. 5 on the ground of adultery and the said divorce case is also pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. It is also submitted that the respondent no. 5 has also lodged an FIR in Mahila P.S, Palamau being Mahila P.S Case No. 20 of 2020 dated 14.12.2020 under Sections 498A/341/323/504/506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and in the said case, the deceased had taken recourse of anticipatory bail. The next date in the said case was fixed for 08.03.2021 and in the meantime, he died. It would appear from the aforesaid facts that the relationship between the deceased and the respondent no. 5 was strained and as such the apportionment of death compensation amount in aforesaid ratio is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners represented the Superintendent of Police, Jharkhand Jaguar, Village-Tendar, Ratu, Ranchi on 03.04.2021, however, no action was taken. The respondents are duty bound to consider that the petitioners being the parents of the deceased and are senior citizens having no other alternative source of income and were solely dependent on the deceased's salary. The apportionment should have been done taking into consideration the strained relationship between the deceased and the respondent no. 5.
3. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the apportionment of the payment of death compensation has been made in conformity with memo no. 4512 3 dated 21.08.2019 issued by the Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, which needs no interference under extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Impugned order dated 05.10.2021 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition itself contains the reason of apportionment. It has been stated inter alia that as per memo no. 4512 dated 21.08.2019 issued by the Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, if parents of the deceased are dependent on him, then 25% of the lump-sum amount being calculated as death benefit will be paid in their joint account and 75% of the same will be paid to the wife of the deceased.
5. The claim of the petitioners is that at the time of death of the deceased, divorce case and criminal complaint filed by the deceased against the respondent no. 5 was pending. The respondent no. 5 lodged a criminal case against the deceased and in view of the said fact, the payment should have been divided in equal proportion between the parents and the respondent no. 5.
6. This Court does not find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners as he has not been able to show any provision before this Court for the said arrangement. Memo no. 4512 dated 21.08.2019 as mentioned in the impugned order clearly provides that the dependent parents will get 25% whereas the wife will get 75% of the amount to be paid as death benefit. Moreover, the wife has been defined under Section 125 Cr.P.C which includes a woman who has been divorced or has obtained divorce from her husband and has not remarried. Thus, on mere ground that the divorce case filed by the petitioners' son was pending at the time of his death cannot be a ground to deprive the widow from getting compensation as per scheme of the State Government. Apart from that, the allegation against the respondent no. 5 was not proved before the competent court of law and the divorce case was also not decided till the death of petitioners' son.
47. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I do not find any infirmity in the sanction order as contained in memo no. 6597 dated 05.10.2021 issued by the respondent no. 2 so as to make any interference under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish