Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1795 (BOM)

Rambhabai Santosh Patil v. State of Maharashtra

2022-07-28

ARUN R.PEDNEKER, RAVINDRA V.GHUGE

body2022
JUDGMENT : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. 1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, heard finally. 2) By the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the decision of respondent/State of Maharashtra, withholding the benefits, to which they are entitled vide Government Resolution (for short ‘GR’) dated 29.11.2008. Petitioner no. 1 is the mother and petitioner no. 2 is the wife of deceased Sanjay Santosh Patil. Late Sanjay Patil was serving as a Head Constable with the State Reserve Police Force, Mumbai and he died while discharging duties in naxalite area in Gadchiroli district on 17.7.2009. 3) Brief facts, leading to this petition, are as under :- On 15.07.2009, deceased Sanjay Patil along with three others were on patrolling duty at B.R.O. Camp at Medapalli, Taluka Bhamragad, District Gadchiroli. On the relevant date, they were travelling in the Border Road Organisation’s tipper truck for carrying out a rescue operation. After finishing their rescue operation, on their way back in the tipper truck in which they were travelling, they were swept away in the river and in the said accident, Sanjay Patil, Police Sub Inspector Dhede, Constables Harishchandra and Ganesh Chavan died. 4. After demise of Sanjay Patil, the State Reserve Police Force started paying salary and pensionary benefits to the petitioners in terms of GR dated 29.11.2008. However, the respondent/State by it’s decision dated 20.7.2019, stopped the salary and pensionary benefits, for the reason that on the relevant date, Sanjay Patil and other three persons were travelling in Border Road Organisation’s tipper truck, were involved in an accident and not ‘in action’. The F.I.R. in the case was registered and it was found that the driver of the tipper truck had driven the truck negligently and thus, was sentenced under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent/State in paragraph no. 5 of the impugned decision held that :- English translation of the above is as under :- “5) While going through the said contents it is clear that, the death of the said four police officers/employees occurred due to negligence committed by the accused driver. The respondent/State in paragraph no. 5 of the impugned decision held that :- English translation of the above is as under :- “5) While going through the said contents it is clear that, the death of the said four police officers/employees occurred due to negligence committed by the accused driver. Therefore, it cannot be said that the death of those officers/officials has been occurred during rescue operation.” The respondent/State, therefore, while interpreting the GR dated 29.11.2008 held that Late Sanjay Patil had died in an accident due to negligence of the driver of tipper truck and not while discharging duty during rescue operation in a naxalite area. 5. The petitioners then made representation dated 6.12.2019 and requested the respondent/State for continuation of pensionary and salary benefits of Late Sanjay Patil. 6. The aforesaid decision of the respondent/State dated 20.7.2019 was challenged by Smt. Shamal G. Chavan, wife of deceased Ganesh Chavan, who died along with Sanjay Patil in the same incident, before the High Court of Bombay at it’s principal seat. The High Court of Bombay, by it’s judgment and order dated 6.5.2021 in Writ Petition (ST) No. 96431 of 2020 allowed the writ petition. The Hon’ble Court, on considering the entire material on record, held that the deceased and other police personnel were returning to their camp after carrying out the rescue operation and thus, were entitled to the benefits of GR dated 29.11.2008. 7. Unfortunately, the benefit of above judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay was not extended to the petitioners in the present case and the petitioners were, thus, constrained to file the present writ petition. The respondent/State, in it’s reply dated 25.7.2022 filed in the present writ petition contended that Late Sanjay Patil did not die in rescue operation and thus, was not entitled to the benefits of GR dated 29.11.2008. The respondent/State further contended that the benefits of GR dated 29.11.2008 granted to all the four persons, who died in the said accident were stopped. 8. The respondent/State further contended that the benefits of GR dated 29.11.2008 granted to all the four persons, who died in the said accident were stopped. 8. After considering the response of the State, we are of the view that the contention of the respondent/State is untenable for the reason that the aforesaid judgment and order dated 6.5.2021 in Writ Petition (ST) No. 96431/2020 filed by Smt. Shamal G. Chavan, wife of Ganesh Chavan, who also died in the said accident, clearly covers the issue and that the respondent/State cannot distinguish between the two similarly placed onstables on duty. The respondent/State is duty bound to implement the aforesaid order passed in the writ petition filed by Smt. Shamal Chavan and extend the benefits to all the four persons, who died in that accident, while they were discharging their duties. 9. Unless the case of the petitioners is barred by delay and laches, which has not happened in the present case, the law postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. [State of Karnataka and others Vs. C. Lalitha reported in 2006 (2) SCC 747 ]. It is also not the case of the respondent/State that the petitioners have approached belatedly. Thus, the petitioners ought to have been given the benefit of the above judgment dated 6.5.2021 passed by the High Court of Bombay. 10. Even on merits, the GR dated 29.11.2008 clearly states as under :- English translation of the above is as under :- “A. The compensation payable under the provision of Government Resolution dated 16.03.2005 and Supplementary Letter dated 06.07.2005 shall henceforth be applicable to police officers and employees who die and are injured during anti-Naxal, anti-terrorist operations, robbery, against organized crime operations and while working in emergencies during rescue operation throughout the State.” 11. After analysing the G.R. dated 29.11.2008 and in the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that the death of the constables, who were travelling in return journey from a rescue operation while discharging duties in naxalite area would be covered as a death occurring in an anti-naxal operation. We accordingly, hold that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of GR dated 29.11.2008 and direct the respondent/State to release the benefits of aforesaid GR to the petitioners and to pay the arrears of salary and pensionary benefits to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today. 12. We accordingly, hold that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of GR dated 29.11.2008 and direct the respondent/State to release the benefits of aforesaid GR to the petitioners and to pay the arrears of salary and pensionary benefits to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today. 12. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. 13. No costs.