Jharkhand High Court
Mariam Khatoon vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.S. No. 5861 of 2019
----
1. Mariam Khatoon, Wife of late Md. Alimuddin @ Alimuddin Ansari, R/o
Village-Manwa, P.O. Hesla, P.S. Giddi, District-Ramgarh.
2. Sahbaj Ansari @ Shahbaz Ansari, Son of late Md. Alimuddin @ Alimuddin
Ansari, R/o village-Manwa, P.O. Hesla, P.S. Giddi, District-Ramgarh.
......Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Home Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project
Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. Director General of Police, Govt. of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
4. Inspector General of Police, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
5. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh. ......Respondents
----
Coram: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. A Allam, Sr. Advocate
: Ms. Asfia Sultana, Advocate
For the State-Respondent : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III
--------
05/21.8.2023 Heard the parties.
2. In this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the
order as contained in letter no. 508 dated 6.6.2019 issued by the respondent no.
5, by which the representation given for appointment to the family members of
the petitioner no. 1 has been rejected with an observation that the aggrieved
party is not entitled for appointment under the scheme of the Jharkhand Govt. A
further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to appoint
the petitioner no. 2 in a suitable government service by way of compassionate
appointment on account of the death of the father of petitioner no. 2 who expired
due to the Mob Lynching in Ramgarh town.
3. It has been submitted by Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners, that since the father of the petitioner no. 2 died on account of a mob
lynching in Ramgarh, the family of the petitioners are to be rehabilitated and the
same would also include consideration for grant of compassionate appointment
to one of the dependents of the deceased. Learned Senior counsel has referred
to a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tehseen S.
Poonawalla Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2018 S.C. 3354. It
has been submitted that though the victim compensation has been paid to the
petitioners but the same would not suffice on account of the death an earning
member of the family and if at all the State Government is interested in
rehabilitating the family of the deceased, appointment should be provided to the
petitioner no. 2.
4. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned AAG-III, has submitted that apart from
making payment of Rs.5,00,000/-as Victim Compensation to the petitioners, the
house has also been constructed under the scheme of the Government. It has
been submitted that the judement rendered in the case of Tehseen S.
Poonawalla (Supra) does not at all indicate that appointment should be
provided to the family of the deceased.
5. The factual aspects of the case reveal that the husband of the petitioner
no. 1 namely Md. Alimuddin @ Alimuddin Ansari was surrounded by a mob and
was lynched to death which resulted in institution of Ramgarh P.S.Case No. 198
of 2017. After conclusion of trial, all the eleven persons charged with committing
the murder have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. On
account of the death of the husband of the petitioner no. 1 she had filed several
representations before the various authorities praying for grant of
compassionate appointment to her family. The petitioner no. 1 had also
approached this Court in W.P.S. No. 409 of 2018 for grant of victim compensation
and the said writ application was disposed of on 9.8.2018 since the victim
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- had been paid to the petitioner no. 1 through
JHALSA and DLSA under section 357A Cr.P.C. It has also been averred that
certain amounts were paid for construction of temporary house of the petitioner
no. 1 and the amount was paid through the respondent no. 1. The petitioner no.
1 had submitted an application for compassionate appointment to the elder son
but he died and in the aftermath several representations were preferred by the
petitioners for grant of appointment to the petitioner no. 2.
6. It is the further case of the petitioners that the D.S.E. Ramgarh had
also asked the petitioner no.1 as to whether her son is ready for being appointed
in class IV posts and clarify about the certificates which the son of the petitioner
no. 1 holds. However, in spite of such letter issued by the District Superintendent
of Education, Ramgarh and in spite of replying to the same, the claim for grant
of appointment to the petitioner no. 2 was not considered and the same was
rejected vide impugned letter dated 6.6.2019.
7. Mr. Allam, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, has based his
contention on the remedial measures as directed in the case of Tehseen S.
Poonawalla (Supra) and particularly to clause (iv) which reads as follows:-
" State Governments shall prepare lynching/mob violence victim
compensation scheme in light of provisions of S. 357A of Criminal P.C.
within one month from date of this judgement. In said scheme for
computation of compensation, State Governments shall give due
regard to nature of bodily injury, psychological injury and loss of
earnings including loss of opportunities of employment and education
and expenses incurred on account of legal and medical expenses. Said
compensation scheme must also have provision for interim relief to be
paid to victim(s) or to next of kin of deceased within period of thirty days
of incident of mob violence/lynching".
8. The said directives include payment of victim compensation which will
consider the various factors enumerated therein as also a provision for interim
relief. Nowhere in clause (iv) it has been directed that in case of a Mob Lynching
the dependent of the deceased shall be entitled for compassionate appointment.
9. As has been noted above, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been
extended to the petitioner no. 1 towards victim compensation and a temporary
house has also been constructed, for which Rs.4,00,000/-was given by the
respondent no. 5. The impugned order has rightly considered that the Victim
Compensation Scheme of 2016 includes only compensation to be paid to the
victim and there is no provision for any scheme of the government by which
appointment could be provided to a dependent of a victim of Mob Lynching. It
therefore cannot be said that the rejection of the claim for appointment of the
petitioner no. 2 vide impugned letter dated 6.6.2019 is contrary to the directives
issued in the case of Tehseen S. Poonawalla (Supra). Infact learned senior
counsel for the petitioners has failed to show as to under which provision of law
such appointment could be granted to the petitioner no. 2. Mr. Allam had tried to
widen the conspectus of the directive (iv) as it has been submitted that the victim
has to be rehabilitated which would also include grant of an appointment but so
far as the rehabilitation part is concerned, as stated above, under the Victim
Compensation Act, some moneys have been paid to the petitioner no. 1 and
certain amounts were also extended for constructing a temporary house and in
absence of there being any scheme, which would imbibe the claim of the
petitioners for grant of an appointment, the respondent no. 5 therefore has rightly
rejected such claim.
10. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned letter no. 508
dated 6.6.2019 issued by the respondent no. 5 and consequently this application
stands dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J)
Rakesh/-
