Remanded

Pinki Barman @ Pingki Barman v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Nov 2022WP(C)/1031/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Deputy Commissioner to verify the petitioner's husband's death by train, her status as Next-of-Kin, and prior disbursement of the ex-gratia grant under the 2014 Government of Assam Notification, and ordered payment by the State if entitlement is confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Remand to Deputy Commissioner to verify death, claimant's relationship, prior payment, and issue reasoned order within two months; payment within one month if entitled.

Pinki Barman @ Pingki Barman Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010024962021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1031/2021

¶5

PINKI BARMAN @ PINGKI BARMAN

¶6

W/O LATE SHAYLEN BARMAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANIKHAITI RAILGATE, PO PANIKHAITI, PS PRAGJYOTISHPUR, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 781026

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT (RELIEF AND REHABILATION) DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006

¶10

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M) PO AND PS PANBAZAR 781001

¶11

3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER

¶12

CHANDRAPUR REVENUE CIRCLE PO PANIKHAITI PS PRAGJYOTISHPUR DIST KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 781026

¶13

4:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE GUWAHATI G.R.P.S PO PALTAN BAZAR DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 781001

¶14

5:THE UNION OF INDIA

¶15

REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHAT

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R Deka

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : MS K PHUKAN (GA, ASSAM)

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 11-11-2022

¶23

Heard Mr. S.I. Akand, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. CSK Boruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, Ms. G. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. D. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

¶24

2. The petitioner is claiming ex-gratia grant for the death of her husband, on being hit by a passenger train at a railway level crossing, in terms of the Notification dated 15.11.2014 issued by the Revenue & Disaster Management Department (Relief and Rehabilitation Branch), Government of Assam.

¶25

3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in terms of the Notification dated 15.11.2014, the petitioner is entitled to the ex-gratia grant of Rs. 2 Lakhs. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the ex-gratia grant has to be paid by the State of Assam and not by the respondent No. 5.

¶26

4. Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that as no claim has been made against the respondent No. 5, the respondent No. 5 has no comments to make in this case.

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

5. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, on the other hand submits that the Deputy Commissioner concerned should made a verification, with regard to whether the petitioner’s husband had died due to being hit by a train and if the petitioner’s husband died due to the above incident, the Deputy Commissioner would also have to see whether the petitioner was the Next-ofKin of the deceased and whether the ex-gratia grant has already been paid to some other person/s.

¶29

6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶30

7. The notification No. RR.33/2014/66-A dated 15.11.2014 issued by the Government of Assam states at Clause 3 as follows:-

¶31

“3. Ex gratia to the NOK of person killed due to accident in public places or in public carriers (other than killed by extremist/terrorist/miscreants and due to the firing of security forces).” - Rs. 2,00,000/-.

¶32

8. The Postmortem Report annexed to the writ petition shows that the petitioner, whose husband had died due to coma, following injury sustained in the head by a blunt force, which was consistent with being run over by a train. The Death Certificate also shows that the petitioner’s husband had died on 28.06.2018. An FIR had also been lodged with the Guwahati Government Railway Police Station (GRPS), wherein, Guwahati GRPS Case No. 60/2018 was registered on 28.06.2018.

¶33

9. In view of the facts stated above, this Court is of the view that the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No. 2) should verify and take a decision, with regard to:-

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

(1). Whether the petitioner’s husband died due to being hit by a train on 26.08.2018.

¶36

(2). Whether the petitioner is the wife of the deceased late Shaylen Barman.

¶37

(3). Who are the Next-of-Kin of the deceased Shaylen Barman and also obtain a No Objection Certificate from other Next-of-Kin that may be available, as regards payment of ex-gratia grant to the petitioner.

¶38

(4). Whether ex-gratia had already been disbursed in respect of the late Shaylen Barman.

¶39

10. If upon considering the above issues, the respondent No. 2 comes to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the payment of ex-gratia grant of Rs. 2 Lakhs, in terms of the Notification dated 15.11.2014, the decision of the Deputy Commissioner should be communicated to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management Department (Relief and Rehabilitation Branch), for payment of the ex-gratia grant. The Deputy Commissioner (respondent No. 2) shall pass a reasoned order with regard to the above issues, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and payment of ex-gratia grant, if any, shall be made within a further period of 1 (one) month thereafter.

¶40

11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Pinki Barman @ Pingki Barman v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pinki Barman @ Pingki Barman 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jadumoni Nath and 28 Ors. Vs State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Binod Gupta Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Imran Hussain Khan Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

M/S Jalan Iron and Steel Company Vs Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and 2 Ors.

L. Sujata Devi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Mintoo Das Vs Pabitra Ram Khound and 2 Ors.