Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 478 (PAT)

Usha Devi v. State of Bihar

2008-03-10

body2008
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and the learned appearing on behalf of the Election Commission. 2. Deceased husband of the petitioner, while he was posted as Draftsman in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Jehanabad, was appointed as Presiding Officer for conducting election of Zila Parishad to be held on 6.9.2003 at Booth No. 12 located in the Primary School, PS Pathra. While seated atop a truck provided as transport on his way to the polling booth alongwith other polling personnel he came in the trap of an electric wire carrying current of 11000 volts and died on the spot the same day for which Makhdumpur U.D. Case No.8 of 2003 was registered. The cause of death after investigation was confirmed to be electrocution. 3. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that she is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 10 lacs for the death of her husband in course of election duty 4. The controversy presently rests on the quantum of compensation as claimed by the petitioner and as offered by the respondents of Rs. 2.5 lacs in pursuance of a policy decision dated 5.5.1997. 5. It is not in controversy that in the Panchayat Election held in the year 2001 the State Government had taken insurance cover for Rs. 10 lacs for personnel deployed on election duty. Compensation was accordingly paid to the eligible persons. Vide Resolution No. 2411 dated 12.11.2005 a decision has been taken by the respondents for panchayat election of that year for enhancing the quantum of compensation to Rs. 10 lacs. In the year 2003 it appears that no such decision was taken by the respondents with regard to those deployed for polling duty. The circular of 5.5.1997 relied upon by the respondents deals with Policemen injured or deceased on duty and special assistance by way of compensation to officers. It says that the previous amount of compensation payable in such cases was determined eleven years ago. Thereafter inflation has also taken place. The compensation amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs was accordingly determined as on 5.5.1997 which is sought to be relied upon by the respondents in the year 2003. 6. It says that the previous amount of compensation payable in such cases was determined eleven years ago. Thereafter inflation has also taken place. The compensation amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs was accordingly determined as on 5.5.1997 which is sought to be relied upon by the respondents in the year 2003. 6. This Court noticing the controversy had required the respondents on 14.1.2008 to explain how human life in the year 2003 became cheaper for the State Government from 2001 and suddenly assumed it importance again in the year 2005. 7. The fresh affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents does not answer this question and on the contrary Para 8 of the affidavit filed on 27.2.2008 is bundle of contradictions. It states that the arrangement made in the year 2001 for payment of compensation was not extended for the Panchayat By-election for 2003. No such decision has been brought on record. No reasons have been assigned in the counter affidavit for any such appropriate decision and what may have been the reasoning not to make the decision of 2001 in similar circumstances applicable in 2003 when it has again been made applicable in 2005. The affidavit only states "The Government at no point of time has ever had any intention to undermine value of human life". 8. Learned Counsel for the State has very fairly and rightly stated that the eligibility of the deceased for compensation to the family of the deceased is not in dispute but only the quantum. 9. The primary duty is of the State to protect its citizen. This would be further enhanced when the citizen is on duty in discharge of the governmental functions and is exposed to vagaries of which the Government is conscious. It was the duty of the respondents to ensure proper transportation to polling personnel. If the respondents were callous in the discharge of this duty, for which no explanation is forthcoming from them, compelling the deceased to travel atop of a truck when as the Presiding Officer he should have been provided the safety and security of the confines of a cabin the respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of what was essentially their own fault. 10. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the absence of any justifiable reasoning or explanation to differentiate the case of the deceased with those who may have been deceased on polling duty in 2001 and subsequently which policy has again been adopted in 2005, this Court is satisfied that the stand of the respondents in granting compensation of Rs. 2.5 lacs only under the notification which has no relevance for the present purpose, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for. Surely human life did not become cheaper in 2003 from 2001 to revive its value in 2005. Arbitrariness inaction is writ large. 11. The respondents are accordingly directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10 lacs to the petitioner towards death of the deceased, being the like amount paid by them to other deceased in the year 2001 and also reiterated and readopted by the respondents in the year 2005. Let such payment be made to the petitioner by respondent No.6 within a maximum period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. 12. The writ application stands allowed.