Jaladhar Jena vs Union Of India And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5024 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                            W.P.(C) No.16845 of 2012
                            (Through hybrid mode)

        Jaladhar Jena                           ....          Petitioner

                                                Mr. A. Sahoo, Advocate

                                    -versus-

        Union of India and others               ....    Opposite Parties

                                  Mr. C.K. Pradhan, Sr. Panel Counsel

                  CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

Order                             ORDER
No.                              22.09.2022
  10.   1.      Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner,

who lost his school going son. He submits, the boy suffered injury. He

refers to information obtained by writing dated 19th June, 2012 on

query made under Right to Information Act, 2005, disclosed under

annexure-3 at page-10. Treatment status stated therein is extracted and

reproduced below.

"The laceration of up lip was stitched by Bhakta Charan Sahoo and treated with required medicines. The prescription has been handed over to the attendant of patient. The treatment hours in P.H.C(N), Konara is approximately 1 ½ hours. The patient was then referred to Capital Hospital, BBSR due to headache for CT scan."

// 2 //

He submits, the scan was not made. There was, therefore, negligence

on part of the school.

2. Mr. Sahoo relies on judgment dated 11th August, 2022 by the

first Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) no.7584 of

2014 (Madhav Soren v. State of Odisha and others) and order

dated 10th May, 2022 of this Bench in W.P.(C) no.20443 of 2012

(Sanjay Kumar Mohanty and another v. State of Odisha and

others), wherein order dated 30th September, 2021 also made by the

first Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) no.24882 of 2012

(Jambeswar Naik and another v. State of Odisha and others) was

relied upon. In all the cases regarding death of school children,

compensation awarded was Rs.10 lakhs.

3. Mr. Pradhan, learned advocate, Senior Panel Counsel appears

on behalf of the school and submits, the school by its Finance

Committee, resolved on 30th June, 2009, inter alia, to pay ex-gratia to

bereaved parents of deceased student at Rs.50,000/-. The

compensation was not taken by petitioner.

4. Mr. Pradhan submits there is no negligence on part of the

school. In the playground, cricket bat slipped out of hands of a student,

// 3 //

who was batting and hit the deceased child. It was an accident. He,

however, prays for adjournment to obtain instruction and submit.

5. In the cases relied upon on behalf of petitioner, the victim

children had died. State was directed to pay compensation. Here the

school is under the Central Government. Adjournment is granted for

the school to consider its position and issue instructions.

6. List on 11th October, 2022 under same heading.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Sks