Patna High Court
Rina Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 11 February, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.536 of 2019
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10308 of 2017
======================================================
Rina Devi Wife of Late Ramakant Chaudhary resident of village and Post
Bhatta, P.S. Kashichak, Distt. Nawada
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Disaster Management
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Collector Nawada
3. The Sub Divisional Officer Nawada
4. The Additional Collector Disaster Management Nawada
5. The Officer-in-Charge Sub Divisional Treasury Section, Nawada Southern
Nawada
6. The Circle Officer Kashichak Nawada
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Arun Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 11-02-2025
The appellant has assailed the order of learned Single
Judge dated 11.04.2019 passed in CWJC No. 10380 of 2017.
Appellant - Rina Devi grievance is that she is entitled to ex-gratia
amount on account of her husband died in motor vehicle accident
Patna High Court L.P.A No.536 of 2019 dt.11-02-2025
2/6
when he was travelling in three wheeler tempo. The learned single
Judge has rejected on 11.04.2019 that appellant is not entitled to
ex-gratia amount with reference to road accident.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned Single
Judge, the present LPA has been filed. Learned counsel for the
appellant vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge has
committed error in not appreciating policy of the State dated
26.05.2015
(Annexure-1) read with subsequent policy dated
18.08.2021. It is further averred that official respondent have
meted out discrimination insofar as not extending ex-gratia to the
appellant in the light of the fact that Asha Devi and Rama Devi
have been extended benefit of ex-gratia. He is also relying on
Supreme Court decision in the case of Sudesh Dogra vs. Union of
India and Ors. decided on 07.04.2014 reported in 2014 (6) SCC
486.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State
resisted the aforementioned contentions and submitted that the
appellant is not entitled to ex-gratia amount in view of the policy
dated 26.05.2015 read with 18.08.2021 on the score that
26.05.2015 policy is in respect of any local disaster and not in
respect of motor vehicle accident. Insofar as 18.08.2021 policy
decision is concerned. Even though it relates to motor vehicle
Patna High Court L.P.A No.536 of 2019 dt.11-02-2025
accident, however, it will be effective from 15.09.2021. On the
other hand, appellant husband late Ramakant Choudhary died on
15.07.2015. If the State has committed illegality in extending any
compensation or ex-gratia to Asha Devi and Rama Devi, it
amounts to illegality. An illegality cannot be perpetuated as held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Muthukumar &
Ors. vs. Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO &
Ors. reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 151 decided on
07.02.2022. On facts of the case, Hon'ble Supreme Court decision
cited in the case of Sudesh Dogra vs. Union of India and Ors. is
not applicable to the case in hand.
4. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties.
5. Undisputed facts are that appellant - Rina Devi
husband-deceased Ramakant Choudhary died in a motor vehicle
accident on 15.07.2015. In this backdrop, he has remedy of
invoking relevant provision under The Motor Vehicles
(Amendment) Act, 2019. on the other had, he has invoked remedy
before the state official respondent in seeking ex-gratia amount in
the light of State policy decision dated 26.05.2015 read with
18.08.2021. He is also pointed out discrimination meted out by the
official respondent insofar as extending ex-gratia amount to Asha
Patna High Court L.P.A No.536 of 2019 dt.11-02-2025
Devi and Rama Devi and relied on Hon'ble Supreme Court
decision in the case of Sudesh Dogra vs. Union of India and Ors.
6. Dates and events are relevant for the purpose of
examining whether appellant is entitled to ex-gratia amount in the
light of the fact that her deceased-husband Ramakant Choudhary
died in motor vehicle accident or not? He had died on 15.07.2015
in a motor vehicle accident. As on 15.07.2015 policy of the State is
dated 26.05.2015 and it was in vogue and it is in respect of local
disaster and not related to any motor vehicle accident. The Motor
vehicle accident policy was introduced for the first time on
18.08.2021 and it would be effective from 15.09.2021 as is evident
from the policy itself. Therefore, the later policy decision is
prospective in nature and it has no retrospective. Further,
discrimination meted out to the appellant in the light of the fact
that Asha Devi and Rama Devi have been extended ex-gratia may
be true at the same time if there is illegality committed by the
official respondent insofar as extending ex-gratia to Asha Devi and
Rama Devi, in that event, appellant - Rina Devi is not entitled to
have such illegal benefit. Supreme Court has held that illegality
cannot be perpetuated in the case of R. Muthukumar & Ors. vs.
Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO & Ors.
reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 151 decided on 07.02.2022.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.536 of 2019 dt.11-02-2025
7. The cited decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sudesh Dogra vs. Union of India and Ors. on factual
aspect it is distinguishable for the reasons that in the case of
Sudesh Dogra vs. Union of India and Ors., it is not a case of motor
vehicle accident. That apart for the purpose of extending any
benefit one has to draw inference with reference to relevant policy
existing or framed by the State. In the present case, policy is
26.05.2015 and 18.08.2021 are applicable or not that has been
explained in our previous paragraph. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Nair Service Society Vs. Dr. T. Beermasthan & Ors.
reported in (2009) 5 SCC 545, in para 48, it is held as under:-
"48. Several decisions have been
cited before us by the respondents, but it is well
established that judgments in service
jurisprudence should be understood with
reference to the particular service rules in the
State governing that field. Reservation
provisions are enabling provisions, and
different State Governments can have different
methods of reservation. There is no challenge
to the Rules, and what is challenged is in the
matter of application alone. In our opinion the
communal rotation has to be applied taking 20
vacancies as a block."
8. In the light of principle laid down in the
aforementioned decisions cited on behalf of the appellant in the
case of Sudesh Dogra vs. Union of India and Ors. is mis-placed.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.536 of 2019 dt.11-02-2025
9. Accordingly, the present LPA No. 536 of 2019 stands
dismissed.
10. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
abhishekkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 27.02.2025
Uploading Date NA
Transmission Date NA
