WRIT PETITION 6003 of 2008 on 7 June 2006

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

3. Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.

4. Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad.

…Respondents

--------

Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY-------- For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Sahani, AdvocateFor the Respondents: J.C. to A.A.G.

--------

08/02-05-2016In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay the compensation amount with interest and terminal benefits on account of premature death of the son of the petitioner.

Earlier the matter was heard and was disposed of on 13.08.2014, wherein it was held that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation as are permissible in case of death during encounter with naxals under the policy of the respondent-State. The petitioner preferred an appeal being LPA No. 324 of 2014, in which vide order dated 16.03.2016, the matter was remanded back for taking a fresh decision on the basis of Resolution No.1192/Finance Department dated 11.06.2011. After remand, the matter has been heard at length.

The facts as would appear from the averments made in the writ application are that second son of the petitioner namely Vivekanand Kumar was appointed on the post of constable in Jharkhand Armed Police in the month of November, 2003. It is the case of the petitioner that on 7.6.2006 while he was on duty in Hariharpur (Gomoh) Police Station, he died in the barrack itself. Necessary efforts were made by the petitioner and his family members by applying before the respondents for payment of amount accruing on the death of the son of the petitioner as well as for providing compassionate appointment to the elder son of the petitioner. The petitioner was, therefore, aggrieved by inaction on the

-2-

part of the respondents in making payment of compensation as well as making payment of dues arising out of the death of his son. Subsequently, it appears that the admitted dues has already been paid but the compensation as claimed for by the petitioner in terms of Resolution No. 1192/Finance Department dated 11.06.2011 has been sought to be negated by the respondents by stating in their counter affidavit that only in case of death of a police personnel during encounter, such compensation is payable.

Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the respondents have relied upon a different resolution altogether and the same does not concern the petitioner. He has submitted that even if the version of the respondents that the son of the petitioner had died while mistakenly firing from the rifle which he was cleaning, could not prevent the petitioner for being compensated in terms of Resolution No. 1192/Finance Department dated 11.06.2011 as the death was caused in course of his duty out of accident, which is covered under the said resolution.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, referred to the case of Sudarshan Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2015 (4) JBCJ 86 (HC).

Learned J.C. to AAG has referred to the counter affidavit and has submitted that since the son of the petitioner was not killed in naxal encounter, he is not entitled for any compensation.

Arguments

It appears that in the counter affidavit, a letter bearing letter no. 12/AAKA-114/2002-5518 has been relied upon by the respondents to refute the claim of the petitioner. It further appears that the claim of the petitioner is covered by the Resolution No. 1192/Finance Department dated 11.06.2011, which also includes the exgratia lump sum in case of death due to accident while on duty. The factual aspects therefore would suggest that the respondents have not taken decision on the claim of the petitioner as the Resolution No. 1192/Finance Department dated 11.06.2011 has not at all been taken into consideration by the respondents while countering the claim of the petitioner. In such circumstances, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent no. 4 along with supporting documents, who in turn, shall consider the representation of the petitioner as also the Resolution of the Finance Department, as indicated above, and thereafter take an informed decision on the same within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of the representation by passing a reasoned order.

It goes without saying that if the claim of the petitioner comes within the periphery of Resolution No. 1192/Finance Department dated 11.06.2011, necessary benefits accruing to the petitioner shall be made available to him within a period of 12 weeks from the date of disposal of the representation.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J)

Rakesh/-