Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 49 (JHR)

Dropadi Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2005-01-20

R.K.MERATHIA

body2005
Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Delip Jerath for respondents. 2. Petitioner prays for her appointment on Class IV post on compassionate ground against death of her husband, namely, Amrit Mahto who died in an accident while on patrolling duty on 25.5.2002. 3. According to petitioner, her case is covered by the Judgment dated 20.2.2004 passed in the case of Gayatri Devi vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., W.P.(S) No. 2613 of 2003, reported in 2004(2) J.C.R. 192 (Jhr.) [: 2004(2) JLJR 132 ]. 4. Mr. Jerath tried to distinguish the said case and submitted that in the said case husband of petitioner was killed in an encounter with the extremists whereas in the present case the petitioner died in a road accident. 5. It is not disputed that petitioner's husband died in a road accident while he was on patrolling duty. It is also not disputed that the said judgment of Gayatri Devi (supra) has become final as no appeal has been preferred against the same. It is held in the said judgment as follows: 6. It is therefore, clear that the Home Guard while on duty shall be deemed to be a public servant and the provisions of Bihar Police Manual shall be applicable to the Home Guards excepting such provision which is repugnant to any of the provisions of Bihar Home Guard Acts and the rules made thereunder. 7. The question, therefore, that falls for consideration is whether a dependent of the Home Guards who is killed in an encounter in the• discharge of his duty is to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. In other words whether the provision of compassionate appointment available to the regular force can be extended to Home Guards who are killed in the discharge of his duty. 9. It is not disputed by Mr. Jerath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that provision has been made for giving compassionate appointment in case of death of regular police officer in the discharge of his duty. In my considered opinion, therefore, a Home Guard when killed in an encounter with the extremist will get the benefit of compassionate appointment particularly when the provisions of police manual which are not inconsistent with the Home Guards Act will be applicable to the Home Guard also. In my considered opinion, therefore, a Home Guard when killed in an encounter with the extremist will get the benefit of compassionate appointment particularly when the provisions of police manual which are not inconsistent with the Home Guards Act will be applicable to the Home Guard also. In the instant case as noticed above the petitioner's husband was killed in an encounter with the extremists. After the death of the only bread earner the petitioner has been put in a very pitiable condition and she claims appointment in Class IV post. Such a benefit should be allowed to the petitioner. " 6. In my opinion, no distinction can be made between a person who was killed in an encounter by the extremists and a person who died in road accident while on patrolling duty. The element of duty is involved in both the cases. In my opinion the case of Gayatri Devi (supra) covers the present case. 7. In the result, the impugned order (Annexure-4) is quashed and the respondents/District Compassionate Appointment Committee is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for her appointment on Class IV post on compassionate ground and to take a decision within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.