The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Ram Vakeel
2021 Latest Caselaw 3024 Jhar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   L.P.A. No. 385 of 2020
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Inspector General of Police
   (Budget), Police Headquarters, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District-
   Ranchi, State- Jharkhand.
                                   ................... Respondent No.6/Appellant
2. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of
   Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Secretary, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand,
   Ranchi.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum.
                       ................... Performa Respondents/Appellants
                           Versus
1. Ram Vakeel, S/O. Suraj Pal Singh, R/O Village Maya Bans,
   Adhapura, P.O- Bhadwas, P.S.- Pilua, Dist-Etah, State- Uttar
   Pradesh.
                                   ................... Petitioner/Respondent No.1
2. The Union of India through Secretary, Home Department,
   Government of India, New Delhi.
3. The Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force,
   Ranchi
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police
   Force, Rampur (U.P).
6. The Commandant-7, Central Reserve Police Force, Jamshedpur.
7. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Noida
   (U.P.).
                                    ................... Respondents/Respondents
                           ---------

CORAM:                HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
                           ---------
For the Appellant:         Mr. Prabhat Kumar, S.C.-II
For Resp. Nos.2-6:         Ms. Shresha Sinha, A.C. to A.S.G.I.
For Resp. No.7:            Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
                           ---------
Oral Order
05/Dated: 23.08.2021

1)     Matter has been heard through video conferencing and there is

no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and/or video quality.

2) This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment/order

dated 03.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C)

No.2293 of 2014, whereby, while allowing the writ application, the

respondents-State has been directed to make payment of Ex-gratia

amount to the tune of Rs.13.75 Lakhs in favour of the petitioner in terms

of the welfare scheme within a period of six weeks from the date of

receipt/production of a copy of the order, with an observation to the

State to recover the said amount from the Insurance Company.

3) Brief facts, which are required to be enumerated in this case, are

as under: -

The writ petitioner was a Constable working under the Central

Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Rampur, in the State of Uttar Pradesh

and while deputed in a terrorist/anti-naxal operation in Village Hath

Nanda in the district of Singhbhum East and in course thereof, was

seriously injured on 19.05.2009. He was immediately admitted in Apollo

Hospital, Ranchi and undergone several tests and it was detected that

the writ petitioner has lost his vision and sustained multiple injuries and,

therefore, was referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New

Delhi, for better treatment.

The writ petitioner has lost his vision in the said anti-terrorist/anti-

naxal operation and has become permanent disabled as per the

Certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Etah, as appended as

Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The writ petitioner, thereafter, has

represented before the authorities of the State of Jharkhand for

payment of Ex-gratia benefits in view of the welfare scheme of the State

of Jharkhand, as appended in Annexure 3 to the writ petition, for which

an enquiry committee was constituted and a report was submitted with a

recommendation for extension of the financial benefits as per the said

welfare scheme, but having not been disbursed any financial benefits,

he has approached this Court by invoking its jurisdiction conferred

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4) The case was contested by the respondents-State by filing

counter affidavit, but the learned Single Judge, after considering the

operation of the welfare scheme, has allowed the writ application with a

direction upon the competent authority of the State of Jharkhand to

disburse an amount of Rs.13.75 Lakhs within the stipulated period with

an observation for its recovery from the Insurance Company as per the

Memorandum of Understanding, which is subject matter of this instant

intra-court appeal.

5) Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondents-State, has submitted that the learned Single

Judge has not properly appreciated about the applicability of the

Memorandum of Understanding which casts duty upon the Insurance

Company to make payment in favour of the victim of such terrorist

activity/anti-naxal operation and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in

law.

6) Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company, has submitted that there is no difficulty on the part of the

Insurance Company to process the document for its reimbursement in

favour of the State Government in accordance with law as there is

already an observation made by the learned Single Judge in the

impugned order.

7) Ms. Shresha Sinha, learned A.C. to the learned Assistant Solicitor

General of India appearing for the Central Reserve Police Force, has

supported the applicability of the welfare scheme by making a

submission that since the State of Jharkhand has come out with a

welfare scheme and since the writ petitioner was on deputation in the

area falling in the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand

wherein he sustained injury leading to permanent disability, therefore,

as per the said scheme he is entitled to be given financial assistance by

way of Ex-gratia amount.

8) This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing for the

parties and perused the documents available on record as also the

findings recorded by the learned Single Judge.

9) The admitted fact in this case is that the writ petitioner was a

Member of the Central Reserve Police Force and while posted in the

State of Uttar Pradesh, he was deputed to be in the anti-terrorist

activity/naxal operation in the State of Jharkhand and while posted in

the district of Singhbhum East, he sustained multiple injuries in the eyes

and in consequence thereof he became permanent disabled as per the

medical report issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Etah, and in view

thereof, he has made a representation before the competent authority of

the State of Jharkhand for disbursement of the Ex-gratia amount as per

the scheme floated by the State of Jharkhand, as appended at

Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

10) This Court has perused the aforesaid scheme and found

therefrom that the State of Jharkhand has come up with a scheme

under the caption heading "Financial Assistance For 91% and Above

Disability to Force Officers/Men" and, therefore, the fact about

compensation of the Ex-gratia amount to be paid under the welfare

scheme is not in dispute. The fact that the writ petitioner has become

permanent disabled is also not in dispute. The State-appellants has only

come up with a case that when the Memorandum of Understanding has

been reached in between the State Government and the concerned

Insurance Company, therefore, the entire liability is upon the Insurance

Company to make payment of Ex-gratia amount in favour of the writ

petitioner.

11) We have considered the Memorandum of Understanding as has

been appended in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the

respondents-State dated 19.05.2016 wherefrom it is evident that the

policy has covered the personnel of State Police, C.P.M.F., JAP, SAP,

IRB, JJ, SENGEL & Home Guards of the State engaged in anti-naxal

operation in the State of Jharkhand making it effective anywhere in the

State of Jharkhand on all naxal related violence. It has further been

stipulated that the Capital Sum Insured in respect of each insured

personnel is Rs.12,50,000/- with a further stipulation under the heading

'Coverages' that during the currency of the Policy, if any personnel,

engaged in anti-naxal operation in the State of Jharkhand, sustains any

bodily injury resulting solely and directly caused by external, violent and

visible means, the Company undertake to pay the Insured, or the

nominee or, the successor, as the case may be, in the following

manner: -

      Benefits/Coverage                        % of Capital Sum Insured
   A. Death                                          100%
   B. Permanent Total Disability                     100%
   C. Loss of two limbs, loss of sight
      of two eyes or loss of one limb &
      loss of sight of one eye                       100%
   D. Loss of one limb or loss of sight of one eye 50%

Under Clause 9 thereof, the procedure for settlement of claims

has been stipulated.

It is evident that the Memorandum of Understanding has been

signed by the State-appellants and the Insurance Company, however, in

the welfare scheme floated by the State Government, there is no such

stipulation to act in accordance with the Memorandum of

Understanding. Meaning thereby, the Memorandum of Understanding

will bind the Jharkhand Police and the National Insurance Company

Limited but as per the welfare scheme floated by the State of

Jharkhand, the victim would be entitled to be compensated through the

Ex-gratia payment of the amount in case of death or the bodily injury

making such police personnel permanent disabled. In such

circumstances, the learned Single Judge, after considering the fact that

the writ petitioner has become victim of anti-naxal operation and

admittedly has become permanent disabled due to the serious injuries

as per the medical disability report, a direction has been given to the

State Authorities for making payment to the tune of Rs.13.75 Lakhs to

the writ petitioner with a liberty to the State to recover the said amount

from the Insurance Company as per the Memorandum of

Understanding. According to our considered view, the impugned order

cannot be said to suffer from infirmity and is in consonance with the

object of the welfare scheme.

12) In view thereof and in view of the material facts available on the

records, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. However, the observation

which has been made by the learned Single Judge regarding making

recovery from the Insurance Company, is kept intact.

The competent authority of the State of Jharkhand is directed to

disburse the Ex-gratia amount within a period of two months from the

date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Manoj/ N.A.F.R.