Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 412 (GAU)

K. Hrangnawna v. State of Mizoram

2018-03-08

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel representing the petitioners, assisted by Ms. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents. 2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of appropriate writ or direction or order directing the respondents to pay Ex-Gratia Lump Sum compensation as per Para 11 Clause C (b) of the Scheme notified under Office Memorandum No. G.17011/4/2010-F.APL/54, dated 27.10.2010 for the death of their respective sons, who died in the course of their duties. 3. On 28.03.2015, a group of Mizoram Police Personnel consisting of 4 persons namely, Constable No. 585 V. Vanlalnghaka of 1st Bn MAP, S.I Zoramthara Khawlhring of Aizawl DEF, D/G-III C. Lalchuailova of Aizawl DEF and C/673 Hmangaihmawia of 1st Bn MAP were detailed to escort a Committee on Assurance of Mizoram Legislative Assembly consisting of 6 MLAs, who were on their way to visit Clinic Centers at Darlawn, Damdiai, N. Khawdungsei, Sakawrdai, Zokhawthiang, N. Tinghmun and Upper Sakawdai. When the team reached a place near Zokhawthiang Village, a group of armed militants, suspected to be HPC (D) suddenly attacked them with firearms. In order to protect the Members of the Assurance Committee, the Security personnel mentioned above retaliated and in the course of fighting, 3 of them, namely, S.I Zoramthara Khawlhring of Aizawl DEF, D/G-III C. Lalchuailova of Aizawl DEF and C/673 Hmangaihmawia of 1st Bn MAP died at the spot. C/585 V. Lalhmangaiha of 1st Bn MAP who was seriously injured succumbed to his injuries on 04.06.2015 at Civil Hospital, Aizawl. After the incident, the Government of Mizoram, Home Department paid Rs. 10 lakhs each to the next of kin of the 4 police personnel. However, the petitioners who have lost their sons were no satisfied with the Ex-Gratia Lump Sum compensation given to them because according to them, they should have been given 15 lakhs each as provided under Clause C (b) of para 11 of the said Scheme provided in the Office Memorandum No. G.17011/4/2010-F.APF/54, dated 27.10.2010. The demand was supported by the Mizoram Police Subordinate Officers Association (MPSO). Accordingly, the Association submitted a representation to the Head Assistant, Account Branch, Aizawl DEF/1st Bn MAP on 01.06.2015. The demand was supported by the Mizoram Police Subordinate Officers Association (MPSO). Accordingly, the Association submitted a representation to the Head Assistant, Account Branch, Aizawl DEF/1st Bn MAP on 01.06.2015. Further, the claim of the petitioners was also supported by the Director General of Police in his letter addressed to the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Home Department being No. CB/PHQ/REHAD/7/275 dated 20.07.2015. 4. After hearing both the learned counsels for the parties, I find that the issue here in based on the interpretation of the Memorandum, which notified the Scheme for payment of Ex-Gratia Lump Sum compensation to the next of kin of people who died while performing their duties. For easy reference the relevant portion of the Memorandum is reproduced here below: 11. "An ex gratia lump sum compensation will be available to the families of Government of Mizoram Employees, who die in the performance of their bona fide official duties under various circumstances from the date of issue of this Office Memorandum. The amount of this ex gratia lump sum compensation shall be as under (a) Death occurring due to accident in the course Rs. 10.00 lakhs of performance of duties. (b) Death occurring in the course of performance of Rs. 10.00 lakhs duties attributable to acts of violence by terrorists anti-social elements, etc. (c) Death occurring due to (a) enemy action in International Rs. 15.00 lakhswar or border skirmishes And (b) action against militants, terrorists Extremists etc. (d) Death occurring while on duty in the Specified high Rs.15.00 lakhs altitude, inaccessible Border posts, etc on account of natural Disasters, extreme weather conditions." 5. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel submitted that the circumstances under which the sons of the petitioners died comes under Clause C (b) of the Scheme given above because the victims/deceased Police personnel died in the course of their action after being attacked by the militants. The learned senior counsel also submitted that the sum of 15 lakhs is nothing compared to the permanent loss suffered by the petitioners in the death of their respective sons while performing their duties. Therefore, the compensation, provided under Clause C (b) of para 11 of the Scheme given in the Office Memorandum, dated 27.10.2010 ought to have been given by the State respondents. 6. Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Govt. Therefore, the compensation, provided under Clause C (b) of para 11 of the Scheme given in the Office Memorandum, dated 27.10.2010 ought to have been given by the State respondents. 6. Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Govt. Advocate contended that the circumstances under which the sons of the petitioners died would fall under Clause B of para 11 of the said Scheme as the incident in which they lost their loved ones happened during the course of performance of their duties. Hence, the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs already given to the petitioners is the appropriate compensation. Mr. Samuel further submitted that under the Scheme as given at para 11 of the Memorandum, different categories of duties and the compensation payable to the next of kin of person who lost their lives are given. Therefore, each Sub-clause has to be read and understood in their specific context as given therein. As such, the 2 (two) categories particularly at Clause B & C of the Scheme has to be read as distinct from each other. The learned Govt. Advocate also submitted that the category given at Clause B is of people who died due to violence committed by terrorist in the course of performing their ordinary duty whereas people who fall under Clause C are people specially assigned to take action against terrorist but died while doing so. 7. The Scheme provided under the Memorandum has no explanation and admittedly, no Court has interpreted this Scheme before. There is also no dispute that the said 4 Police personnel died while performing their duties assigned to them. The only dispute is whether they should be given compensation under Clause B or Clause C of the said Scheme. The words at clause (c) followed by the words of sub-clause (b) of the Scheme "Action against militants, terrorist, extremist etc,." can be understood as an incident which occurs when a person or group of persons belonging to security organization are assigned to take action against militants and while taking such action, if the personnel so assigned to such duty or special assignment happened to die, they would be entitled to the compensation as given therein. But, at the same time, the same Clause can be interpreted as action taken by personnel after they are under attacked. It would be wrong to rule out deaths that occurred following such action taken in retaliation. But, at the same time, the same Clause can be interpreted as action taken by personnel after they are under attacked. It would be wrong to rule out deaths that occurred following such action taken in retaliation. The words in Clause C starting with "Death occurring due to actions against militants, terrorist, extremist etc", in my view would not exclude such incidents where security personnel died following the action or counter action taken after they are attacked. In the facts and circumstances of the case at hand I am unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Samuel, learned Govt. Advocate, that the deceased persons as per their command order were assigned only with the duty of escorting the members of Assurance Committee. Because, that would not mean that their duty was just to escort the Members but also to protect them from attacks of militants, whose presence in that area was generally known. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner as soon as they were attacked, the Police personnel, also retaliated and that can also be termed as action taken against the militants. Though it is true that they were not specifically assigned to go and attack militants at a particular spot or spots, compelled by the event or the incident, the Police personnel as stated by the petitioners counsel and as revealed by the letter of the Director General of Police gave their lives bravely while fighting the militants. The Scheme is a beneficial Scheme to help the bereaved family members of personnel of State Police, who unfortunately died in course of performance of their duties due to violence committed by militants. Therefore, the Scheme has to be given a broad meaning to give wide coverage in the absence of any explanation or any express provision, which excludes such incidents, in which Police personnel died. Needless to say but ours is a welfare State, it is the duty of the State to see to it that those who are left behind by such brave hearts while performing their duties are looked after or at least helped to stabilized their lives after the death of their beloved sons. The State is in a much better position to extend every possible help than the persons who are left behind by their love ones to fend for themselves, that too with the pain of having loss their loved ones. The State is in a much better position to extend every possible help than the persons who are left behind by their love ones to fend for themselves, that too with the pain of having loss their loved ones. In fact, the Director General of Police i.e., the respondent no. 2 in the present case, who is the best person to know about the incident has recommended very strongly for payment of the Ex-Gratia Lump sum compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs each under Clause C of para 11 of the Scheme to the bereaved families of the Police personnel, who died. In my view, the said letter of the Director General of Police also adds credence and weightage to the claim of the petitioners. In view of all that has been stated above, I am of the view that the State of Mizoram has to show a little magnanimity and compassion in extending help to the bereaved families to stabilize themselves. In doing so, to add a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs more to the compensation already given would not do any harm to the State but only add courage and strength to the forces of the State who round the clock work so hard to maintain peace, tranquility and safety of the people of the State. For all we know, 15 lakhs these days is nothing much, but the State Government should not hesitate to give at least what is provided under the Scheme. Keeping in view all these, the petition of the petitioners is allowed and the State respondents are hereby directed to add 5 lakhs more to the compensation already given. Needless to say since the incident happened in 2015, the State Government should endeavor to pay the left over amount within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. A copy of this Order be furnished to the learned Govt. Advocate for necessary information and compliance in turn to the respondents.