JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Sidharth, Counsel for the petitioner, Counsel for the State and the Counsel for the University. 2. In this writ application, a prayer has been made for payment of compensation on account of untimely death of the husband of the petitioner, who is said to have died as a consequence of burning inflicted upon him while performing his official duty in capacity of the Principal of Bihar Veterinary College, Patna. 3. Bereft of all the niceties, the case of the petitioner is that on 26.6.2001, when the husband of the petitioner was conducting an examination and supervising of 1998 batch of sixth Semester of the students of 1998 batch in the Bihar Veterinary College, the students had indulged into hooliganism and when objected to, by the Petitioners husband in capacity of Principal by desisting them not to use unfair means in the aforesaid examination, he was brutally assaulted and ultimately put into the flames of the fire ignited by the students, who had sprinkled petrol in the car in which the petitioners husband had tried to hide himself in course of the alleged occurrence in the College campus. 4. The vivid description of the occurrence in paragraph no. 10 of the writ application by the petitioner would reveal that the husband of the petitioner, a Principal of the Govt. Veterinary College was made target and victim of the unruly mob of the students, who did not flinch their eyes in burning their Principal by way of "Gurudakshina". 5. The widow, therefore, is before this court with series of documents and evidence to show that her husband having ultimately died on account the fire injury on his person, she should be compensated by the State, which is the guardian for maintaining law and order. 6. Counsel for the petitioner would refer to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Charanjit Kaur V/s. Union of India and Others reported in 1994 Supreme Court 1491 to support himself that under similar circumstances when Army Officer was done to death under suspicious circumstances, the Apex Court had granted compensation of Rs. 6 lacs. 7. Counsel for the petitioner would refer to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Charanjit Kaur V/s. Union of India and Others reported in 1994 Supreme Court 1491 to support himself that under similar circumstances when Army Officer was done to death under suspicious circumstances, the Apex Court had granted compensation of Rs. 6 lacs. 7. Counsel for the University, on the other hand, in the light of the stand taken in the counter affidavit, has admitted that the unfortunate brutal incident of burning of the Principal of the College, the husband of the petitioner, had taken place on 26.6.2001 and he ultimately succumbed to his such injuries on 17.6.2002. The University has also given details of certain payments to the tune of Rs. 2.5 lacs approximately made to the petitioner under the retirement scheme as the husband of the petitioner had superannuated on 31.1.2002. The University has also taken a stand that normally payment by way of compensation is not available to a dependent of retired employee but in the case of the petitioner, the University had recommended for appointment of one of the sons of the petitioner on compassionate ground. Such counter affidavit having been filed on 12.5.2003, neither the Counsel for the petitioner nor the Counsel for the University is sure about the final decision taken with regard to the aforesaid appointment on compassionate ground, but then Counsel for the petitioner would submit that such appointment on compassionate ground has not been given to any two sons of the petitioner. 8. This Court would find that there is no dispute on this score that on the day husband of the petitioner had been subjected to brutality of his being burnt alive in the car in the College campus by the students of the College, he was the head of the institution i.e. Patna Veterinary College whose payment of salary emoluments are fully payable by the State. Even otherwise, the State was the custodian of law and order and if any untoward incident had taken place in the Government servant, or an Officer on duty of University was subjected to fatal burn injuries leading to his ultimate death, the State cannot remain a mute spectator both in capacity of employer as also the guardian responsible for maintaining law and order. 9. 9. The University has in fact taken plea that though the incident as alleged by the petitioner is true and correct but then the University has no funds from which any payment of compensation can be made for the unfortunate death of the husband of the petitioner. The State Government has not filed any counter affidavit and in such a situation, when Counsel for the petitioner would either rely on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Charanjit Kaur (supra) and also cite examples of few other similar cases including that of late Randhir Verma, I.P.S. while chasing dacoits in the Bank dacoity or late G. Krishnaiya, I.A.S., D.M., Gopalganj burnt alive by the unruly mob Mr. Sanjay Kumar, I.F.S., District Forest Officer, Sasaram, killed in action by miscreants whose family members were paid compensation by the State Government ultimately only on account of their being subjected to premature death while on duty, this Court would find that the case of the petitioner also needs to be considered by the State with same seriousness and of course on the same parameters. This Court is conscious that the husband of the petitioner had superannuated after sustaining the injuries on the fateful day but then the medical reports forming part of this writ application leave nothing for speculation by this Court or any prudent person to differ with the opinion that the death of the husband of the petitioner was the direct result of the injuries that he had sustained almost one year ago while he was in service. 10. For the present, this Court does not like to fix the quantum of compensation nor it would hold as a matter of course that the petitioner is entitled for grant of such compensation but then having noted that in this State, the family members or Officers on duty subjected to their being killed on duty have been paid compensation, this Court would expect that a similar consideration and treatment is given to the petitioner for the death of her husband. 11. 11. This Court would, therefore, dispose of the writ application with a direction to the petitioner to file a self-contained representation to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar, who in turn with his recommendation would place the matter to place the matter before the State Government (Chief Minister) and obtain his orders with regard to the payment of compensation to the petitioner. It would be also open for the State Government to apply any uniform policy already framed for giving compensation to similarly situated persons. Such decision however by a reasoned order must be taken within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the representation of the petitioner alongwith a copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is finally disposed of.