Allowed

Smti Ronju Barhoi v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 May 2019WP(C)/5702/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court found that inadequate safety measures and lack of training exposed the deceased petitioner's husband to unnecessary risk during grenade unpriming. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to pay an additional Rs. 2.50 lakh ex-gratia to the petitioner. The matter was disposed of with specific time-bound directions to the Director General

What did the court decide?

Granted additional ex-gratia of Rs. 2.50 lakh to the petitioner and directed the Director General of Police to pay the same within four months.

Smti Ronju Barhoi Vs the State of Assam and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010017582014

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 5702/2014

¶5

1:SMTI RONJU BARHOI

¶6

W/O LT. DILIP BARHOI R/O DERGAON, 11TH A P BN., P.O. and P.S. DERGAON, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

¶9

THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-6.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GHY.-7.

¶11

3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE GOLAGHAT PO. and PS. and DIST.-GOLAGHAT ASSAM.

¶12

4:THE COMMISSIONER FINANCE DEPTT. GOVT. OF ASSAM BELTOLA GHY.-28

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.Z RAHMAN

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 13-05-2019

¶19

Heard Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. G. Pegu, learned Government Advocate has submitted that as per the instructions received by him, the ex-gratia of Rs.50,000/- was paid in terms of notification dated 29.07.2006 which provides that an employee of the government would be entitled to ex-gratia of Rs.50,000/-. He has also submitted that the concerned Superintendent of Police, Golaghat had carried out an enquiry and submitted a report dated 18.02.2010. The detail report of blast is enclosed as Annexure-V to the writ petition.

¶20

In the said report, amongst others, the following has been recorded:

¶21

“On 04.03.2009 Sri Deep Phukan C.A. to Commandment 11^th A.P.Bn. informed over telephone at NRL O.P. at about 5:45 PM to the effect that on 04.03.2009 the grenade firing range practice for recruit Constable was carried out at Kolioni Firing Range, Numaligarh but for insufficient light the practice was stopped. Some prime Grenades were unprimed by Lt. Dilip Barhoi (LNK). During the time one Grenade was exploded as a result Lt. LNK Dilip Barhoi, ABSI Dimbeswar Saikia. Hav. Montu Ahmed & Kamal Buragohain and one R/C Gogan Baishya sustained injury on their person and all of them were shifted to V.K. NRL Hospital for urgent treatment.”

¶22

An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 namely, Sri Pradip Rajan Kar, who has stated that he was discharging his duty as Commandant, 11^th A.P. Battalion. In para-10 of the said affidavit-in-opposition he has made the following statement:

¶23

“That, with regard to the statement made in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it is stated that the averment made in this para is not true as priming and unpriming of Grenade at Firing Range during firing practice at notified Range is entrusted to trained and export (sic.) hand by maintaining safety drill. The allegation of compelling the petitioner (sic.) husband to unprimed the prime Grenade is not true.”

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

It prima-facie appears to this Court that although in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.2 that the priming and unpriming of grenades during firing practice at notified Range is entrusted to trained and expert hand by maintaining safety drill. But in the detailed report of inquiry dated 18.02.2010 there is no finding to the effect that the deceased namely, Late Dilip Barhoi, LNK was a trained and had an expert hand in priming and unpriming of the grenades. From the said detailed report of blast dated 18.02.2010 it appears that it was due to insufficient light at about 5:45 p.m. the grenade firing practice was stopped and some prime grenades were unprimed by the deceased one by one, as such, there is no material before this Court to hold that the unpriming of the grenades at the firing range was done by maintaining safety drill. Therefore, the statements made in para-10 of the affidavitin-opposition filed by Pradip Ranjan Kar, Commandant 11^th A.P. Battalion does not inspire confidence of this Court as the said statement is not supported by any record to show that the deceased had successfully undergone any training in priming and unpriming of grenades as claimed by the respondents.

¶26

As indicated above, the statements made in para-10 is not supported by the facts as narrated in the detail report of blast dated 18.02.2010. Accordingly, this Court is constrained to hold that by allowing Late Dilip Barhoi (LNK) to unprime some prime grenades one by one, the Assam Police had not maintained adequate safety measures while allowing the said deceased to carry out such duty and exposed the deceased to unnecessary risk.

¶27

Under such circumstances, the ex-gratia of Rs.50,000/- granted to the petitioner on the death of her husband is inadequate in view of the fact that the husband of the petitioner was exposed to unnecessary risk and in the absence of any record that the husband of the petitioner was given inadequate training to priming and un-priming of grenades and that he was provided with safety gear for carrying out of such exercise, notwithstanding the compensation as provided under notification under Memo No.FMF-13/85/104, this Court is inclined to hold that the petitioner would be entitled to ex-gratia of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakh only). By adjusting the earlier ex-gratia of Rs.50,000/- already paid to the petitioner, she would be entitled to the balance sum of Rs.2.50 lakh (Rupees Two lakh fifty thousand only).

¶28

The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this order before the Office of the

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

Director General of Police, Assam within a period of 2(two) weeks from today and upon receipt of the certified copy of this order, the said authority shall move the competent authority including the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home Department and pay the additional ex-gratia of Rs.2.50 lakh (Rupees Two lakh fifty thousand only) to the petitioner within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶31

1. This writ petition stands allowed in terms of the direction contained in the order.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Smti Ronju Barhoi v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Ronju Barhoi v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagadish Chandra Nath Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Buddhadip Gogoi Vs Dr Narayan Bordoloi and 2 Ors.

Mohd. Saimuddin and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Smti Batamai Das Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Smt. Anora Begum @ Smt. Anora Begum Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Tridip Hazarika and 195 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 11 Ors.