Jharkhand High Court
Meena Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2024
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 187 of 2017
Meena Devi, Wife of Late Ramadhar Sharma, Resident of Behind Patliputra
ANM Training Centre, Adarsh Colony, Road No. 1, P.O. New Jaganpura, P.S.
Ram Krishna Nagar, District- Patna (Bihar)
... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. &
P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
3. Secretary, Finance, Department of Finance, Government of Jharkhand, Project
Bhawan, Dhurwa, PO & PS. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
4. Additional Secretary, Department of Water Resource, Government of
Jharkhand, Nepal House, PO. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi
5. Deputy Secretary, Department of Water Resource, Government of Jharkhand,
Nepal House, PO. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi
... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, G.A.-I
---
Order No. 13 Dated 19th November, 2024
1. Since no affidavit has been filed by learned G.A.-I in terms of the order
dated 18.07.2024, we accordingly dispose of this matter based on the materials
available on record.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4399 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the
prayer of the writ petitioner for grant of ex gratia compensation of an amount of
Rs. 10 Lakhs has been dismissed.
3. It has been submitted by Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant was granted ex gratia payment based on the 2001 Circular of an amount
of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs. He has referred to Resolution No. 1192 of the Finance Department
dated 11.06.2011 while submitting that the enhanced compensation has come into
effect from 01.01.2006 and since the appellant has received the compensation of
Rs. 2.5 Lakhs in the year 2008, the case of the appellant was not closed and
therefore she was entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs. Learned
counsel in support of his contention has referred to the case of Shashikalabai
(SMT) v. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (1998) 5 SCC 332.
Page-1
4. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned G.A.-I has defended the impugned order
while submitting that the case of the appellant was already closed by the time, the
Resolution No. 1192 dated 11.06.2011 had come into existence though with
retrospective effect from 01.01.2006. It has further been submitted that so far as the
judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the
same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the
said judgment a reference has been made about a circular in which a specific
clause was stipulated to the effect that the compensation cases already closed shall
not be reopened.
5. The brief facts reveal that the husband of the appellant was employed in
the Department of Water Resources and while he was on extraordinary leave
(though it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
husband of the appellant was on casual leave) in the intervening night of
09/10.10.2001 while travelling in a train a dacoity was committed in which the
husband of the appellant had died. Consequent to the same in the year 2008 ex
gratia payment in terms of the Circular dated 21.03.2001 was extended to the
appellant of an amount of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs. A resolution was issued being Resolution
No. 1192 dated 11.06.2011 by the Department of Finance, State of Jharkhand in
which the ex gratia lump sum compensation amount was enhanced to Rs. 10
Lakhs and the same was made effective from 01.01.2006. It is the claim of the
appellant that since the ex gratia compensation was paid to the appellant in the
year 2008 which was after the effective date of the Resolution No. 1192 dated
11.06.2011, the appellant was therefore entitled to the enhanced amount of ex
gratia compensation. In the case of Shashikalabai (SMT) v. State of Maharashtra
and another (Supra), it has been held as follows:-
"2. In respect of the fatal accident of the appellant's husband who came
in contact with a live electric wire and died of shock, the High Court has
given compensation of Rs 30,000 on the basis of the circular of the
Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Respondent 2 herein, dated 5-4-
1979. Death occurred on 18-3-1991. However, there was
correspondence between the appellant and the respondents from 1991 to
1994 and the actual formal application was made on 14-2-1994, by
which time the new circular of 28-1-1993 had come into force. Under
the new circular of 28-1-1993, the compensation amount has been
increased from Rs 30,000 to Rs 60,000. The circular also states that it
shall come into force with immediate effect and the compensation cases
already closed shall not be reopened. Since the present case was not
Page-2
closed on the date of the Circular coming into effect, the appellant
should have been granted benefit of the new circular."
6. On a perusal of the aforesaid order, it clearly reveals that the circular under
reference in the said order stipulates that the compensation cases already closed
shall not be reopened. In the present case, as we have noted above the Resolution
No. 1192 is dated 11.06.2011 by which time the ex gratia compensation amount of
Rs. 2.5 Lakhs was already extended to the appellant. Merely because the said
Resolution No. 1192 dated 11.06.2011 was made effective retrospectively from
01.01.2006, the same would not entitle the appellant to claim the enhanced amount
of ex gratia compensation. Moreover, the Resolution No. 1192 dated 11.06.2011
does not stipulate any such clause similar to the clause which has been referred in
the case of Shashikalabai (SMT) v. State of Maharashtra and another (Supra).
7. At this juncture, Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to a
Resolution dated 23.10.2002 while submitting that the case of the appellant is
covered under the said resolution.
However, it appears that the learned Single Judge has noted the Resolution
dated 23.10.2002 and at the same time has also mentioned about the appellant
seeking benefit under Resolution dated 21.03.2001 which covers death due to
extremist violence which in no circumstances includes the case of the appellant.
8. On consideration of the entire facets of the case, we are not inclined to
interfere in the impugned order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4399 of 2013 and consequently we dismiss this appeal.
Pending I.A., if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.)
MK
Page-3
