Dismissed

Smt.Sumitra Devi v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC21 Mar 2022WPC/5594/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nagpuran High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning a delayed insurance compensation payment. The court rejected the State’s request to recall an order imposing interest recovery due to official laches, noting the claim remained pending for seven years before the petitioner’s death.

What did the court decide?

The instant Writ Petition was disposed of after dismissing the interlocutory application for recalling the order of interest recovery.

Smt.Sumitra Devi Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [Civil Writ Jurisdiction] W.P.(C) No. 5594 of 2009

¶2

Smt. Sumitra Devi .... .. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .. ... ...Respondents

¶3

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶4

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the respondents-State : Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.-I.

¶5

10/ 21.03.2022 .

¶6

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha has submitted, that pursuant to the order dated 23.12.2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court an amount of Rs.22,66,666/- has been paid to the legal heirs of Mantu Paswan, who died on 20.02.2005, while performing Election Duty as Constable.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha has further submitted, that there was Insurance Policy of the Government with ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Limited and National Insurance Company Limited, where coverage for the employees, who died while performing election duty was Rs.10,00,000/-, but for more than 16 years 11 months, till the order has been passed by this Hon'ble Court no action has been taken by the respondentauthorities and in the meantime, petitioner- Smt. Sumitra Devi also died in the year, 2016, leaving behind her sons and daughters as legal heirs.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha has further submitted that since the aforesaid amount has already been paid to the legal heirs of petitioner, as such, writ petition may be disposed of.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondent- State, Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.-I has submitted, that amount has already been paid along with interest to the legal heirs of petitioner.

¶11

An Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.891 of 2022 has been filed by Deputy Commissioner, Palamau for recalling or modification of the part order dated 23.12.2021, whereby this Hon'ble Court has observed that entire interest of the compensation amount shall be recovered from the personal salary of the Deputy Commissioners, posted at Palamau, since 20.02.2005 till today.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondents- State, Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.-I in support of the Interlocutory Application has prayed to expunge the remarks as well as direction to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand to make recommendation to make entry in their service record, which is maintained by the

¶13

-2-

¶14

Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, New Delhi in accordance with law as well as after following the principle of natural justice.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondents- State, Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.-I has further submitted that there is sufficient ground to expunge the remarks as well as the direction with regard to recovery of the interest from the personal salary of the Deputy Commissioners, Palamau, posted from 20.02.2005 till the date of payment as the payment has been made to the legal heirs of the petitioner.

¶16

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents- State is not an explanation for the delay more than 16 years i.e. from 20.02.2005 till the date of payment and the payment has only been made on 16.03.2022 after cognizance has been taken by this Court.

¶17

This Court is of the view that the officer concern has no compassion with family member of deceased Constable, who lost life while serving the State. The officers also lack proper attention towards Judicial work as the writ petition was filed in the year, 2009 for death caused on 20.02.2005 and payment was only made after more than 16 years. If, Constable has died during Election Duty on 2005 and there was an agreement with ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Limited and National Insurance Company Limited for coverage of the employees, it was incumbent upon the officer to consider it expeditiously but due to the laches of the officer concerned, the widow lady suffered for about five years. Thereafter she came before this Court on 02.12.2009 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and for the next seven years, the matter remains pending, till she took her last breath and she died in a situation, were her rightful claim has not been given by the high officials of the State at District level. The payment was only made when this Court has taken a stringent view of such action upon respondent-authorities.

¶18

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to reconsider the order dated 23.12.2021.

¶19

I.A. No.891 of 2022 stands dismissed.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition is hereby disposed of.

¶21

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶22

R.S.

Smt.Sumitra Devi v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Sumitra Devi v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ursuline Convent School through Its Principal Sister Jayanti Kerketta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Haradhan Mahato Vs Maga Prasad Mahato And Ors.

Somra Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gurdip Singh Vs Union of India And Ors.

Gurdip Singh Vs Union of India And Ors.

Kumar Sambhava Vs Union of India And Ors.