Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 393 (JHR)

Ram Chander Pandey v. Union Of India

2017-02-23

ANANDA SEN

body2017
JUDGMENT Ananda Sen, J. – In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to pay the amount of compensation in accordance with the ratio, as per which, the other similarly situated persons like Shri T. Kujur and Sri Supriyan Soren, have also been paid and declared disabled. 2. The petitioner joined the services of the Boarder Security Force and while he was posted in Srinagar, during counter attacking of the extremist in Kashmir Valley, he sustained Bomb blast injury on 4.4.1995. The petitioner was treated but he became physically handicapped and his disability was to the tune of 60%. Annexure-4 is the Disability Certificate, showing the disability of the petitioner as 60% and he has been declared as permanent physically impairment in relation to his both right upper and lower limb face. The respondent- BSF has paid a sum of Rs. 4,34,510/- as a lump sum compensation in view of the fact that the petitioner has sustained injury and has been declared 60% disable. The petitioner received the said amount under protest and made a representation before the authority that the amount is not adequate and he is entitled to a much higher amount. He submitted that other persons who had sustained less injury than that of the petitioner have been paid a sum of Rs. 11 Lakhs. The petitioner cited the case of Supriyan Soreng and T. Kujur, who were paid a sum of Rs. 11 Lakhs on account of sustaining 60-65% disability. Thus the petitioner claims that he is entitled to get the amount of Rs. 11 lakhs as compensation. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Inspector General (Training Centre & School) BSF. In the said counter affidavit, it has not been denied that the petitioner has sustained injury in the blast and has been declared 60% disable. In the counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that as per the Government of India, Personnel Grievances and Pension Letter No. 45/1/2004-P& PW(I) of 27th January, 2005, while calculating the compensation after 1st of April, 2004, the dearness pay has to be included with basic pay. It has further been mentioned that the constable T. Kujur was declared to be 100% disable and constable Suprian Soreng was only 50% disabled but those two constables were medically examined on 24.11.2004 and 19.2.2004, whereas, the petitioner was medically examined on 1.12.2003. It has further been mentioned that the constable T. Kujur was declared to be 100% disable and constable Suprian Soreng was only 50% disabled but those two constables were medically examined on 24.11.2004 and 19.2.2004, whereas, the petitioner was medically examined on 1.12.2003. It has been stated that while calculating the compensation of constable T. Kujur, dearness pay was included in terms of the said circular. It has further been mentioned that constable Suprian Soreng was paid only Rs. 3,61,788.00 as compensation and not Rs. 11 lakhs, as claimed by the petitioner. 4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the calculation, made by the BSF, does not include the dearness pay which should have been included for the purpose of calculating the compensation to the petitioner. He further submits that admittedly the dearness pay with respect to payment of compensation to constable T. Kujur was included but the same was not included while calculating the compensation amount of the petitioner. He also submits that the dearness pay should have been included while calculating the said amount. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, it transpires that the petitioner has sustained injury in Bomb Blast and became 60% disabled. He was medically examined on 1.12.2003 and thereafter a compensation of Rs. 4,34,510.00 was assessed. The petitioner is seeking parity with constable T. Kujur, who was medically examined on 24.11.2004 and he was found to be 100% disabled. The petitioner was medically examined on 1.12.2003 and was found 60% disabled. So there cannot be any parity between them. 6. As per the counter affidavit, the Government of India, Personnel Grievances and Pension Letter dated 27.1.2005 has decided to include the dearness pay with basic pay while calculating compensation only after 01st April, 2004. Thus, as per the counter affidavit, only after 1st of April, 2004, the dearness pay will be included in basic pay for the purpose of calculating the compensation. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner was medically examined on 1.12.2003 i.e. before the said letter/circular and T. Kujur was examined after the said letter/circular was issued i.e. 24.11.2004. From the counter affidavit, it is also clear that while calculating the compensation of Suprian Soreng, dearness pay was also not included as he was medically examined on 19.2.2004 i.e. before the 1st of April, 2004 (when the circular was given effect to). From the counter affidavit, it is also clear that while calculating the compensation of Suprian Soreng, dearness pay was also not included as he was medically examined on 19.2.2004 i.e. before the 1st of April, 2004 (when the circular was given effect to). Thus, I find that the case of the petitioner cannot be equated with that of the constable T. Kujur. Further there is no discrimination in payment of compensation with respect to the petitioner and the constable Suprian Soreng as in both the cases, the dearness pay was not taken into consideration while calculating the compensation and further more Suprian Soreng, only 50% disabled, has got less amount of compensation than that of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any parity in payment of compensation with constable T. Kujur or Suprian Soreng. 8. In view of the above, I find no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is dismissed, accordingly.