Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 52 (MEG)

Sanjay Das v. State of Meghalaya

2019-02-26

S.R.SEN

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. S.C.Chakrawarty, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. J.Tigga, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. H.Abraham, learned GA on behalf of the respondents. The brief facts of the case is that: "In the month of November, 2013, while the state of Meghalaya was witnessing a movement for the implementation of Inner Line permit (ILP) the father of the Petitioner, Late Bisheswar Das, was a victim of arson, having been subjected to physical attack by way of being burnt with petrol. The late father of the Petitioner succumbed to his burnt injuries at NEMCARE Hospital, Guwahati, where he was being treated. The Government of Meghalaya had taken the liability to bear all the financial expenses that would be incurred for the late father of the Petitioner. The father of the Petitioner succumbed to the injuries on 04.12.2013 at Guwahati. On 24.10.2014, Officials of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shilong visited the mother of the Petitioner and handed over 2 cheques amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only and Rs. 5,38,297/- (Rupees Five Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Seven) only to the mother of the Petitioner. The mother of the Petitioner was never informed that the cheque amounting to Rs. 5,38,297/- (Rupees Five Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Seven) only was to be paid to NEMCARE Hospital, Guwahati, while handing over the same. Sometime during the month of February 2017, the Petitioner was called upon by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner and to his utter shock was directed upon to return the sum of Rs. 5,38,297/- (Rupees Five Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Seven) only or pay the same to NEMCARE Hospital, Guwahati. The Petitioner, on expressing inability to return the said amount, immediately volunteered to pay the said amount on a monthly installment basis at the rate of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only, on which the Deputy Commissioner directed the Commandant to deduct a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only per month from the salary of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is employed as a Guardsman, Border Wing Home Guard Battalion, Meghalaya, Shillong and draws a monthly take home salary of less than Rs. 28,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand) only and has 6 dependants upon him. The deduction of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only per month from the salary of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is employed as a Guardsman, Border Wing Home Guard Battalion, Meghalaya, Shillong and draws a monthly take home salary of less than Rs. 28,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand) only and has 6 dependants upon him. The deduction of Rs. 20000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only, per month shall subject the Petitioner and his family to dire financial constraints for survival. The directive issued by the Deputy Commission is bad in law, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice." 2. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that the ex-gratia payment made to the petitioner is inadequate though a separate cheque was given to the victims wife for medical expenditure to the tune of Rs. 5,38,297/- (Rupees Five lakhs, thirty-eight thousand, two hundred and ninety seven) only, without informing the victims wife i.e. the mother of the petitioner. He also submits that the income of the petitioner is hardly Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only and it is very difficult to survive with this amount as the petitioner had also lost his shop. 3. On the other hand, Mr. H.Abraham, learned State counsel submits that the ex-gratia payment to the victims family at the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) only, was sufficient because in addition to that, medical expenses was also given at the tune of Rs. 5,38,297/- (Rupees Five lakhs, thirty-eight thousand, two hundred and ninety seven) only. 4. After hearing the submission advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, I am not inclined to accept the submission advanced by the learned State counsel. I have also given an opportunity to the State to rethink and settle the matter by giving proper compensation vide my order dated 14-11-2018. However, nothing concrete has come up. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the victim died for no fault of his as he was sitting in his shop and some goons or miscreants came, poured petrol and set fire to the victim. 5. I make it clear that to maintain law and order is the sacred duty of the government and they are to secure safety to each and every citizen of this country. Therefore, they just cannot wash their hands by giving Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) only and some medical expenses. 6. 5. I make it clear that to maintain law and order is the sacred duty of the government and they are to secure safety to each and every citizen of this country. Therefore, they just cannot wash their hands by giving Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) only and some medical expenses. 6. Therefore, considering the principle of natural justice, principle welfare state and considering the fact that the victim died due to law and order problem caused by some miscreants, his family members should not suffer. It is appropriate that the government should pay Rs 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) only, minus Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) only which was already paid and the medical expenses which was given is to be waived off. 7. Therefore, government is directed to pay another Rs 9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs) only to the victims family and not to press for recovery of the medical expenses from the salary of the petitioner. Payment to be made within 2(two) months from the date of this order. 8. With this observation, petition is allowed and stands disposed of.