Allowed

Safiur Rahman v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Mar 2023WP(C)/8125/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Whether a petitioner who was eligible for a Covid-19 compensation scheme but failed to receive funds due to errors in beneficiary name and demand draft expiry should be directed to receive the amount. The court allowed the writ petition and directed authorities to disburse the sum within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent authorities to process the claim and disburse the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the Prarthana Scheme in the form of a cheque or demand draft within two months.

Safiur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010259172022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/8125/2022

¶5

SAFIUR RAHMAN

¶6

S/O. LT. HAJI BHOAMR @ HAJI BHOAMR ALI, VILL. KHUDRAKUCHI, P.O. BALAGAON, P.S. KALGACHIA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781319.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPT. OF HEALTH, DISPUR, GHY.-06.

¶9

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶10

BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301. 3:THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (HEALTH) BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301. 4:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781301

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : G UDDIN

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶15

ORDER

¶16

14.03.2023

¶17

Heard Mr. A.K. Azad, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department for the respondent nos. 1 & 4; and Ms. S. Sarma, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 & 3.

¶18

As the issue raised in this writ petition is claim of compensation, the writ petition is taken up for final consideration at the admission stage itself, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

The petitioner was the husband of one Late Anowara Khatun who died on 19.05.2021 admittedly due to Covid-19 positive. In connection with the death of Late Anowara Khatun, the Registrar, Birth & Death, Barpeta Civil Hospital, issued a Death Certificate dated 07.06.2021 recording the date of death of Late Anowara Khatun on 19.05.2021 at Barpeta Civil Hospital, Kalgachia. During the continuance of Covid-19 pandemic, the State Government by a Cabinet decision on 01.09.2021, had announced a scheme, ‘Chief Minister’s Covid-19 Prarthana Scheme’ [‘the Prarthana Scheme’, for short]. As per the guidelines formulated under the Prarthana Scheme, the eligible beneficiaries are to be given a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

¶20

3.1. The petitioner as the Next of Kin [NoK] of Late Anowara Khatun, applied for the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the Prarthana Scheme by submitting an application before the concerned authority and the respondent authorities after scrutiny and proper verification of the application, issued a cheque bearing no. 704801 dated 29.09.2021 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. But as there was wrong incorporation of the name of the beneficiary i.e. the petitioner as ‘Saifur Rahman’ instead of ‘Safiur Rahman’, the petitioner had to return the cheque to the respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 3 acknowledging receipt of the cheque,

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

initiated the process for issuance of a fresh cheque in the corrected name Safiur Rahman. After following the formalities, the respondent authorities had issued a demand draft bearing no. 90446 dated 13.12.2021 in the name of Safiur Rahman i.e. the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The said demand draft was handed over to the petitioner on 17.03.2022. The demand draft bearing no. 904446 dated 13.12.2021 had a validity for a period of 3 [three] months. As the demand draft was handed over to the petitioner only on 16.03.2022, the petitioner could not encash the demand draft and had to return the same again to the respondent authorities.

¶23

3.2. The respondent authorities after receipt of the demand draft bearing no. 904446 dated 13.12.2022, had initiated the process for issuing a revalidated cheque/demand draft in the name of the petitioner [Safiur Rahman], as reflected from the letter bearing memo no. BDM55/2021/101 dated 29.03.2022. But after waiting for a substantial period of time till 16.11.2022 when the petitioner did not receive the revalidated cheque/demand draft for the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the benefit under the Prarthana Scheme, the petitioner has approached this Court by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to disburse the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the Prarthana Scheme forthwith.

¶24

The respondents were put to notice on 21.12.2022 but till date, no instruction as regards handing over of the revalidated cheque/demand draft for the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/under the Prarthana Scheme has been placed by the learned State Counsel.

¶25

It is an admitted position that the petitioner had been selected as a beneficiary to receive the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the Prarthana Scheme as a Next of Kin [NoK] for the death of his wife due to Covid-19. It is also an admitted position that the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- had been earlier disbursed to the petitioner in the form of a cheque bearing no. 704801 dated 29.09.2021 and a demand draft bearing no. 904446 dated 13.12.2021. But, due to incorporation of a wrong name in the cheque on the first occasion and due to expiry of the validity period of the demand draft on the second occasion, the petitioner could not receive the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thus, it is clear that it was due to certain discrepancies at

¶26

Page No.# 4/4

¶27

the end of the official respondents, the petitioner has not been able to receive the benefit under the Prarthana Scheme till date.

¶28

Having regard to the admitted position that the petitioner is entitled to receive the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the Prarthana Scheme, this Court is of the considered view that instead of keeping this writ petition pending the same can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to hand over the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the Prarthana Scheme by way of a cheque/demand draft within a reasonable period of time. It is accordingly ordered. Ms. Sarma, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam has submitted, at this stage, that a period of 2 [two] months would be a reasonable period for the respondent authorities to process the claim of the petitioner and disburse the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the Prarthana Scheme.

¶29

In the above view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to process the claim of the petitioner and disburse the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the Prarthana Scheme in the form of cheque/demand draft, within a period of 2 [two] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order from the petitioner at the office of the respondent no. 3. In order to facilitate processing of the claim and disbursement of the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the petitioner shall submit a certified copy of this order at the office of the respondent no. 3 for taking further necessary steps in this regard.

¶30

This order disposes of the writ petition.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Safiur Rahman v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Safiur Rahman 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

Anupama Borgohain and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Smti Jadim Singphoo Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Dipak Kumar Saha Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Pratima Das and Anr. Vs the Settlement Officer and 5 Ors.

Sajall Singh Vs the State of Assam and 11 Ors.

Taibur Rahman Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.