Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 364 (JHR)

Hiramani v. State of Jharkhand

2010-03-22

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
JUDGMENT : The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay her compensation for the loss of life of her husband who had died in extremist violence and also to grant compassionate appointment to her son. 2. The petitioner's case is that her husband was a social worker and used to assist the police in search operations against the extremists. In course of such police operation, on account of extremist violence on 23.9.1998, the petitioner's husband was fatly injured and he died. In spite of such death on account of extremist violence, the concerned authorities of the respondent State Government have not paid any amount of compensation to the petitioner and in spite of her repeated representations, neither have they considered the petitioner's claim for compensation nor for grant of compassionate appointment to her son. 3. In the counter-affidavit, as it appears, though the respondents have acknowledged that the petitioners husband had died in extremist violence, the stand taken for refusing to concede the petitioner's prayer for compensation is that the petitioner did not approach the concerned authorities of the respondents in time and she has filed the instant writ application after lapse of more than nine years and therefore, she is not entitled to claim compensation. A further stand has been taken by the respondents that though, the State Government way back in 1987, had taken a policy decision to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the dependents of such person who may die in extremist violence, but there was no policy decision taken by the State Government for granting any compassionate appointment to any surviving heir / legal representative of the deceased. 4. As pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, an identical issue came up for consideration before a Bench of this court tin the case of Madhuri Devi vs. State of Jharkhand & others vide W.P. (S) No. 101 of 2005 and earlier also, in the case of Sametri Devi vs. State of Jharkhand & others vide W.P.(C) No. 3233 of 2002 in which a similar issue regarding the claim for payment of compensation for the death of the deceased on account of extremist violence, was raised. This court, in the case of Madhuri Devi (Supra), had occasion to consider the resolution of the State Government dated 21st September 1987 whereby a sum of Rs. This court, in the case of Madhuri Devi (Supra), had occasion to consider the resolution of the State Government dated 21st September 1987 whereby a sum of Rs. 20,000/-was fixed as payable compensation to the victims of the extremist violence. 5. From perusal of the copy of the notification (Annexure-A to the counter- affidavit), it appears that according to the policy decision and the directions contained in the Government Notification, it was the duty of the concerned authorities of the administration to make prompt recording of the names and identity of all such individuals who die / sustain injuries on account of extremist violence and to pay the amount of compensation payable as per the notification, to the legal representative of the deceased. 6. In the present case, as it appears, this obligation has not been carried out by the concerned authorities of the administration. Had they complied with the directions as contained in the notification and had carried out their obligations, the whereabouts of the petitioner being the surviving widow of the deceased, would have been promptly ascertained and the amount of compensation would have been promptly offered to her. On the contrary, as it appears, the concerned authorities of the respondents did not bother to make any record or discharge their obligation in terms of the notification issued and had all along allowed the petitioner to suffer on account of the delay on their part for considering the case of the petitioner's claim. It further appears, even as admitted by the counsel for the respondents, that the State Government in the year 2001 has subsequently revised the amount of compensation and enhanced the same to Rs. 50,000/-. It appears from the judgment passed in the case of Madhuri Devi (Supra) that though the Government Notification had notified payment of monetary compensation only to the dependent of victims of extremist violence, but in one of the districts namely, the district of Charta, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee had considered the case of the dependents of the such deceased persons and had recommended for their appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that subsequently in the year 2003, the State Government has taken a further decision for considering the cases of such dependents of victims of extremist violence for grant of compassionate appointment to them. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that subsequently in the year 2003, the State Government has taken a further decision for considering the cases of such dependents of victims of extremist violence for grant of compassionate appointment to them. 5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the respondent authorities by their own inaction, had delayed the payment of compensation to the petitioner causing her prejudice and financial difficulties all along and also considering the view taken by this court in the case of Madhuri Devi (Supra) whereby a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh was paid to the claimant by way of compensation for the premature death of the deceased on account of extremist violence, the respondent authorities shall pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) to the petitioner within two months from the date of this order. In the event the amount is not paid within the time stipulated above, it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of expiry of the stipulated period, till the date of final payment. With the above observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent State.