Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1383 (JHR)

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2008-12-03

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
Order Petitioners in these writ applications being teachers in the various Government High Schools, were deployed as Polling Officers for election duty by the order of the District Election Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner of the district for the bye elections of the House of People of 2007. On 27.3.2007 while they were proceeding towards their respective polling booths on the bus transport arranged by the Government, the bus carrying the petitioners and other Polling Officers fell into the river. As many as 15 persons died in the accident while many of the survivors including the petitioners sustained severe injuries. Quite a few of the injured persons suffered permanent disabilities. The injured persons including the petitioners were air dashed to RIMS, Ranchi for their medical treatment. Expressing concern and feelings for the injured persons and the family members of those who have died, the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Jharkhand announced a compensation package of Rs. 10 lakhs for each family of the dead persons and a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs for those who had suffered permanent disablement as a result of injuries sustained by them. The injured persons including the present petitioners were referred to the especially constituted Medical Board to assess the extent of disability suffered by them. The Medical Board on examining each of the injured persons, had submitted its report stating the extent of disablement which each of the injured persons had suffered. As per the report of the Medical Board, the petitioner Pradeep Kumar [W.P.(C) No. 79 of 2008] had suffered 20% permanent disablement, the petitioner Ram Dayal Singh [W.P.(C) No. 74 of 2008] had suffered 10% permanent disablement whereas petitioner Rajesh Singh [W.P.(C) No. 66 of 2008] did not suffer any permanent disablement. The petitioners submitted their respective representations before the district administration for payment of compensation as per the declaration of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Jharkhand, annexing thereto the disability certificate/report issued by the Medical Board and had also claimed reimbursement of the expenses incurred for the medical treatment undergone by each of them. The Area Education Officer of the concerned district had also directed the Principal of the Government Schools where the petitioners were employed as teachers, to forward all the medical certificates of the petitioners. 3. The Area Education Officer of the concerned district had also directed the Principal of the Government Schools where the petitioners were employed as teachers, to forward all the medical certificates of the petitioners. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of their repeated representations, none of the respondents have taken any action or initiative to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. Furthermore, the petitioners have not even been paid their salary for the period for which they were undergoing medical treatment as indoor patients for several months. 4. Claiming that they are entitled to receive the compensation amount of Rs. 5 lakhs each, as per the compensation package announced by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, and claiming that the inaction of the respondents and their failure to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioners is not only against the principles of natural justice but it is also violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners in their individual writ applications have prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in terms of the compensation package announced by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Jharkhand and the corresponding notification of the State Government through its concerned department and also to pay the amounts in respect of the medical and other expenses incurred by them for the treatment of their injuries sustained during the election duty. 5. Two separate counter affidavits, one on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Election Officer, Garhwa (Respondent No.4) and the other on behalf of the District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa (Respondent No.6) have been filed. In the counter affidavits filed by the Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 6 it appears that though the claim of the petitioners has been denied and disputed by the respondents but it is admitted that the petitioners were deployed for election duty as Polling Officer at various polling booths and in course of election duty, they had suffered an accident on 27.3.2007. It is also admitted that the injured persons were rushed to the hospital where they were provided medical treatment and later, the injured persons were referred to the Medical Board for the assessment of disablement suffered by each of the victims. It is also admitted that the injured persons were rushed to the hospital where they were provided medical treatment and later, the injured persons were referred to the Medical Board for the assessment of disablement suffered by each of the victims. The report of the Medical Board containing list of the names of the injured persons who were referred to the Medical Board and the extent of permanent disablement suffered by each of the injured persons has been filed by the respondent No.4 as Annexure-‘B’. 6. On the issue relating to payment of compensation, the stand taken by the Respondent No.4 is that on receipt of the report of the Medical Board, the Deputy Commissioner of the district forwarded a letter dated 11.12.2007 to the Chief Election Officer, Jharkhand, Ranchi seeking instructions/guidelines regarding payment of compensation to the injured persons for their respective percentage of disabilities since it was not clear to him as to how much compensation should be paid for the respective percentage of disability in view of the Resolution No. 376 dated 4.11.2006 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand (Annexure-B). It is stated that in absence of a clear cut direction/guidance, the payment of compensation to the petitioners could not be made. As regards the petitioner Rajesh Kumar [W.P.(C) No. 66 of 2008], it is submitted that as per the report of the Medical Board, the petitioner Rajesh Kumar did not suffer any disability whatsoever either partial or permanent and as such he is not entitled to claim any compensation at all in terms of the Resolution of the State Finance Department (Annexure-B). As regards the claim of the petitioners for the payment of salary for the period they could not attend their respective duties at the school on account of the injuries sustained by them during election duty, it is stated by the Respondent No. 4 that it is the exclusive concern of the Education Department, Jharkhand. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No.6, the facts pleaded by the petitioners that they were deployed on election duty and they had suffered injuries and had undergone medical treatment due to which they could not attend their duties in their respective schools for several months, have been admitted. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No.6, the facts pleaded by the petitioners that they were deployed on election duty and they had suffered injuries and had undergone medical treatment due to which they could not attend their duties in their respective schools for several months, have been admitted. It is stated that the District Superintendent of Education by his letter No. 353 dated 8.3.2008, had forwarded the individual applications of the petitioners addressed to the Director, Human Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranch; for grant of special disability leave for the period during which the petitioner could not attend their duties in their respective schools but in absence of any letter of sanction received from the department, the salaries of the petitioners for the leave period has not been paid to them. 8. Heard counsel for the parties. 9. Shri Amit Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly the petitioners were deployed on election duty and in course of the election duty performed by the petitioners, they had suffered the accident. Admittedly, the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Jharkhand had declared a compensation package to the family of each of the deceased and also to the injured persons who had suffered injuries. In terms of the Government policy which was declared by the Hon'ble Chief Minister on behalf of the State Government, the Finance Department of the State Government had issued a Circular (Annexure-B) under which a compensation amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was to be paid to the family of each of the deceased other than the personnel employed under the Central Police Force and 50 per cent of such amount was assured for those injured persons who had suffered partial disablement like disablement of one or more organs of the body. Learned counsel argues that under the aforesaid compensation package which was reaffirmed by the Finance Department of the Government by its notification (Annexure-B), the petitioners are entitled to a sum of RS.5 lakhs each by way of compensation and they are also entitled for salary for the period they could not attend their duties at their respective schools during the period of their medical treatment. 10. 10. In the light of the admitted facts, it cannot be disputed that the persons who had suffered even partial disablement, are entitled to the payment of compensation as per the compensation package and as notified under the Notification (Annexure-B) issued by the Finance Department of the State Government. 11. On a plain reading of the notification (Annexure-B), it would be apparent that while the amount of compensation payable to the family of the deceased was fixed at Rs. 10 lakhs, the payment of compensation for those who had suffered partial disablement was fixed at Rs. 5 lakhs. The Notification does not speak in terms of percentage of disability nor does it specify that the compensation payable for the disabled should be in proportion to the percentage of the disability suffered by them. No doubt, such payment of compensation is payable to only those persons who had suffered partial disability of a permanent nature and not to those who had not suffered any disability at all. The terms of the Notification being clear and specific, it does not leave any scope for any confusion or any occasion for the Respondent No. 4 to seek guidance from the authorities concerned as to what proportion of the stipulated compensation amount should be paid in terms of the percentage of the disabilities. 12. Report of the Medical Board (Annexure-4) certifies that the petitioner Pradeep Kumar [W.P.(C) No. 79 of 2008] and the petitioner Ram Dayal Singh [W.P.(C) No. 74 of 2008] had suffered 20% and 10% permanent disability respectively. Both these petitioners are therefore, entitled to claim and receive the compensation amount of Rs. 5 lakhs each in terms of the compensation package declared by the State Government through the Notification issued by the Finance Department by the State Government. As regards the petitioner Rajesh Kumar [W.P.(S) No. 66 of 2008], the report of the Medical Board has confirmed that he had not suffered any disablement either partial or permanent at all. As such, he cannot claim or demand payment of any compensation under the Government Scheme as notified vide the Finance Department's Notification (Annexure-B). 13. However, payment of compensation under the compensation package announced by the State Government would be totally different from the claim of reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the injured persons. As such, he cannot claim or demand payment of any compensation under the Government Scheme as notified vide the Finance Department's Notification (Annexure-B). 13. However, payment of compensation under the compensation package announced by the State Government would be totally different from the claim of reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the injured persons. Although the petitioner Rajesh Kumar did not suffer any disablement even partially and is not entitled to claim any compensation under the compensation scheme of the State Government, but he is certainly entitled to the reimbursement of medical expenses which he had incurred for the treatment of his injuries including purchase of medicines etc. and for the mental agony, suffering and pain which he had undergone as a result of injuries sustained by them. On the other hand since under the compensation package the petitioner Pradeep Kumar and Ram Dayal Singh would be entitled to claim and receive a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs each, the amount would be deemed to cover compensation for the mental agony, pain and suffering as well as expenses incurred for their respective medical treatment. Furthermore, since the petitioners could not attend their duties at their respective schools on account of their undergoing medical treatment for the injuries sustained by them, they are entitled to claim special leave for the period of absence and be paid their salary for the period of such absence. 15. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I direct hereby- (i) That the. respondent State through its appropriate department shall release a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs each to the petitioners Pradeep Kumar [W.P.(C) No. 79 of 2008] and Ram Dayal Singh [W.P.(C) No. 74 of 2008] by way of compensation to them. (ii) The respondent State shall pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the petitioner Rajesh Kumar [W.P.(C) No. 66 of 2008] by way of compensation for the mental agony, pain and suffering and towards medical expenses incurred by him. (iii) The Director, Education Department shall sanction special disability leave to each of the petitioners for the period they could not attend their duties at their respective schools on account of their undergoing medical treatment for the injuries sustained by them and shall release payment of the salary for the aforesaid period to each of the petitioners. (iii) The Director, Education Department shall sanction special disability leave to each of the petitioners for the period they could not attend their duties at their respective schools on account of their undergoing medical treatment for the injuries sustained by them and shall release payment of the salary for the aforesaid period to each of the petitioners. The above directions shall be complied with by the respondents within three months from the date of this order. With the above observations, these writ applications are disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent State.