IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1581 of 2007
Nutan Lakra Petitioner
Versus
1.Union of India
2.State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Jharkhand
3.The Secretary, Department of Home, Jharkhand
4.The Secretary, Department of Finance, Jharkhand
5.Withdrawal and Disbursement Officer, Department
Of Home, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi Respondents
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Union of India: Mr. Faiz-ur-Rahman, CGC
For the Respondent State: JC to Sr. SC-I
---
5. 08.09.2009
Heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and
JC to Sr. SC-I, for the respondent State as also the counsel for the respondent
Union of India.
2. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
3. The petitioner’s claim in this writ application is for a direction to the
respondent State to give / provide ex-gratia / special compensation amount to the
petitioner on the ground that her husband, who was employed in the Central
Armed Forces and deployed at Assam, had died on 23.3.2000 while discharging
his duty for the service of nation.
Petitioner has raised her claim on the basis of the State Government
Resolution dated 15.6.2004 (Annexure-3) which was given effect from
retrospective date i.e. from 15.11.2000 and under which, a scheme has been
notified for providing welfare measure to the wife and dependants of the
members of the Central Armed Forces who had lost their life in the service of
nation while on duty.
4. As it appears, admittedly, the petitioner’s husband had died of malaria on
23.3.2000. The beneficial scheme, on the basis of which the petitioner has raised
her claim, was notified on 15.6.2004, though with effect from 15.11.2000.
Apparently, the cause of action, if any, had accrued to the petitioner on 23.3.2000,
that is, much prior to the date of implementation of the welfare scheme.
5. Counsel for the petitioner would want to explain that the notification by
which the welfare scheme was introduced, does not specifically debar the benefit
of the scheme to such personnel who had died in course of discharging his duty,
prior to 15.11.2000. Rather, the scheme provides that the benefits under it shall be
extended to only such personnel in respect of whom, the Head Office of the
Central Police Service has issued a certificate. Learned counsel points out that
certificate in this context, has been issued in favour of the petitioner’s husband
and the respondent authority ought to have taken cognizance of the same and
extended the benefit of the scheme to the petitioner.
2
6. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have denied and disputed the
claim of the petitioner, mainly on the ground that the petitioner’s claim appears to
be misconceived. It is stated that the scheme which was introduced on 15.6.2004
and given effect from 15.11.2000, is beyond the purview of the petitioner’s claim
as the cause of action did not attract the application of the scheme (Annexure-3).
Learned counsel would explain that the scheme was essentially meant only for
such personnel of the Armed Forces who had attained the status of martyrs upon
their death in course of combat operations and not to the personnel who had died
on account of illness.
7. I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the
respondents.
8. As it appears from the counter-affidavit, the petitioner had earlier filed a
writ application before this court vide W.P.(S) No. 661 of 2007 for similar relief.
This court had dismissed the writ application by relying upon the ratio decided by
the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. Somvir Singh [2007(4)
SCC 778].
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the aforesaid judgment
of the Supreme Court is in a totally different context in as much as, the claim in
the case before the Supreme Court was for compassionate appointment, whereas
in the present case, the petitioner’s prayer is for ex-gratia compensation. Even in
the earlier writ application, the relief prayed for was only for the grant of
compassionate appointment and not for payment of ex-gratia compensation.
10. Be that as it may, there is no cause of action for the petitioner to make any
claim for ex-gratia compensation on the basis of the Government Welfare Scheme
(Annexure-3).
11. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, finding no merit in this
writ application. The same is dismissed.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J)
Ranjeet/