IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 5871 of 2007
...
Daji Mishra ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. Inspector General of Police, Home guard, Ranchi.
6. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Home Guard, Ranchi.
7. Deputy Commissioner, Godda.
8. District Commandant, Home Guard, Godda.
9. Superintendent of Police, Godda. ... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Kailash Pd. Deo, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State : - J.C. to A.G.
...
5/13.05.2010
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner’s husband, who was employed as a Home-Guard, had died on
28.09.2005, prematurely while discharging his official duties, when he was attacked by a gang of
criminals.
3. Considering the incident, by way of a interim relief to the dependents of the
deceased-Home guard, the concerned authorities of the State Government paid a sum of
Rs.50,000/- by way of ex gratia payment to the widow of the deceased, namely, the present
petitioner.
4. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the
concerned authorities of the Respondents to give her a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of
compensation on the basis of the State Government’s Circular dated-10th November, 2005
(Annexure-5). The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the Respondents for
consideration of grant of compassionate appointment to her son.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that the State Government has already
adopted a Policy Decision, for providing compassionate appointment to the dependents of the
Government employees, who die in course of extremist’s violence though not specifically for the
Home guards and there is no reason why the dependents of the Home guards, dying, in course of
discharging their duties under the State Government should be deprived of such benefits.
To buttress his arguments, learned counsel refers to a judgment of this Court
in the case of Salwa Devi-versus-The State of Jharkhand & Others vide W.P. (S) No. 6335 of
2007, in which the Respondent-State Government had taken a similar stand that the Government
has not offered any such policy to provide compassionate appointment to the dependents of the
Home guards, dying, in course of duty and after considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ application, had directed the Director
General of Police, Home guards, Government of Jharkhand to consider the case of the writ
petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment/payment of compensation and death-cum-retiral
benefits. Learned counsel refers to another judgment of this Court in the case of Chanda Devi-
versus-The State of Jharkhand and others vide W.P. (S) No. 1390 of 2006 , which also relates to
the claim for compassionate appointment and compensation made by the surviving widow of the
deceased-employee, and in which while interpreting the standing orders of the Bihar Home guards
Rules, 1953, this Court had observed that such home-guards who die while performing their
duties, shall be deemed to be public servants and the provisions of the Home Guards Rules, 1953
shall be applicable to the Home guards and while disposing of the writ application, had directed
the concerned authorities of the Respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner therein, for
appointment on compassionate grounds. Reference has also been made by the learned counsel, to
yet another judgment of this Court, passed in the case of Gayatri Devi-versus-The State of
Jharkhand & others, reported in 2004 (2) J.L.J.R. 132, in which a similar direction was issued to
the concerned authorities of the Respondents, for considering the prayer of the widow of the
deceased-Home guard (writ petitioner therein), for grant of compassionate appointment. Learned
counsel would further refer in this context to the State Government’s Resolution dated-18th May,
2002, issued in the Department of Home, whereby a decision was taken to consider the cases of
the dependents of the deceased, who are killed in extremist violence while discharging their
official duties, and submits that by the same logic, the benefit of such Resolution should be
extended to the dependents of the deceased-Home guards.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State while referring to the averments contained
in the various paragraphs of the counter-affidavit, would submit that since the relevant
Government Resolutions under the Home-guard Rules, do not provide for grant of compassionate
appointment, therefore, the petitioner’s prayer for compassionate appointment could not possibly
be considered. As regards her prayer for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-, learned counsel submits
that the matter has been referred for guidance to the Secretary, Home Department and further
action would be taken after receiving the necessary instructions in this regard.
7. Considering the undisputed facts that the petitioner’s husband who was employed as
a home-guard, had suffered premature death on account of the criminal violence and considering
the fact that the Government had declared vide its Resolution/Modification dated-10th May, 2005
(Annexure-5) for grant of compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-, the concerned authorities of the
Respondents are directed to pay the total sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, less the amount which has already
been given to the petitioner.
As regards the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, the Director
General of Police, Home Guards shall consider the petitioner’s claim in the light of the
observations and the ratio decided in the several judgments, passed by this Court, referred to
above, within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
8. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondent-State.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
APK