Allahabad High Court
Smt. Chandrawati vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 15 October, 2024
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:164053-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34321 of 2014 Petitioner :- Smt. Chandrawati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Prakash Srivasta,B.D. Pandey,Yijay Kumar Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar Shukla,Arvind Kumar,P.K. Mishra,Sushil Mehrotra,Tarun Agarwal Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay ex-gratia compensation Rs. 10,00,000/ to the petitioner and her family due to death of her husband on election duty.
ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner pending before them within stipulated time."
3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the sole petitioner died and in her place, names of her legal representative were substituted pursuant to an order dated 2.9.2024.
4. The claim of the petitioner is based on the allegation that during the Elections of Kshetra/Zila Panchayat Members, 2005, the deceased (the petitioner's husband) was assigned duty to complete the election process pertaining to his block as he was working on the post of Block Development Officer in Block Mehdawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar. It is stated that on 22.10.2005, the petitioner's husband was on election duty, where he suffered a heart attack due to heavy and extra work load and after treatment he came back on duty. On 25.10.2005 during counting of votes, some anti-social elements abused and misbehaved with the husband of the petitioner who again suffered a heart attack. Though, doctor advised him rest, but the Election Commissioner did not grant him leave. On 27.10.2005, the petitioner's husband suffered a heart attack for the third time, but he died due to lack of proper treatment.
5. The District Magistrate wrote a letter to the respondent no.2 i.e. the State Election Commission dated 8.12.2005, in which it was stated that late Sukh Lal, the petitioner's husband, was working extremely actively during the election process, due to which he had repeated heart attacks, whereafter he died. The respondent no.2 was requested to arrange for providing monetary assistance to the family of the deceased. It is stated that a letter dated 19.12.2005 was also sent by the Additional Commissioner and the State Election Commission to the respondent no.4, the Insurance Company, for providing compensation. The petitioner also moved a representation before the concerned authorities, but no action having been taken, the instant petition was filed.
6. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. In a short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, the State Election Commission, it has been stated that after the notification of the 2005 Panchayat Elections on 23.9.2005, a group insurance policy was taken from the respondent no.4, the Insurance Company, for insuring the lives of the personnel deployed on election duty. It is stated that the case of the petitioner was forwarded to the Insurance Company by the respondent no.2 in 2005, but it has absolutely no say in the manner of processing of claims and/or disbursal of compensation for which the Insurance Company is solely responsible. A copy of the insurance policy has been enclosed with the short counter affidavit.
7. In a separate counter affidavit stated to be filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 by Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, who was then posted as Assistance District Election Officer (Panchayat), Sant Kabir Nagar, in paragraph no. 4 whereof it is stated as follows:-
"4. That the contents of paragraph no. 4 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated hence denied. In reply thereto, it is stated that the husband of the petitioner namely Sukh Lal was posted as Block Development Officer and during service period he died on 27.10.2005 due to Heart Attack. It is relevant to mention here that the wife of deceased officer namely Chandrawati, petitioner was submitted an application on 8.8.2017 before the District Magistrate stating therein that her husband was deputed in Election duty and during completion of election he died and the family of deceased employee/officer is entitled for compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/ as prescribed by the State Government to the employees/officer deputed in Election duty. The District Magistrate Sant Kabir Nagar wrote a letter to the respondent no.2 and the respondent no.2 has asked the Senior Manager, the New India Insurance Company Ltd. Lucknow to get conducted the enquiry in the said mater and to proceed in accordance with law. All required documents were made available to the Senior Manager, the New India Insurance Company Ltd. It is further submitted that the Insurance Company informed that the employee/officer who died due to Heart Attack do not come under the purview of Insurance Policy and no claim is liable to be given to him. It is also relevant to mention here that the Block Develoment Officer is not deputed in election duty or MATGADNA (counting) and the husband of petitioner, Sukh Lal had not performed his duty in conducting the election or counting."
(Emphasis by the Court).
8. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.4, the New India Insurance Company Limited, it has been denied that any intimation was received by the Insurance Company or that any claim form alongwith relevant documents was submitted by the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar and other State authorities. It has been stated that after filing of the writ petition by the petitioner, on 7.7.2014, the respondent no. 3 sent a letter to the office of the Insurance Company alongwith letter dated 19.12.2014 regarding claim of the deceased Sukh Lal. The entire records were searched and it was found that no claim regarding death of Sukh Lal was received by the office of the Insurance Company and, accordingly by a letter dated 22.7.2014 information to this effect was sent to the respondent no. 3.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that in the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner, in reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, the contents of paragraph no. 4 thereof , which has been quoted in its entirety hereinabove, the last sentence of that paragraph which has been emphasised above, has not been specifically denied. Even otherwise, as evinced from the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4, which have been referred above, the contents thereof reflect disputed questions of fact, which would require the matter to be considered after recording evidence of the witnesses and taking into account the other relevant facts and not by mere exchange of affidavits.
10. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.10.2024 sfa/