Kanchan Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

2026:JHHC:20741

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 4776 of 2022

Kanchan Devi W/o- Late Samhut Ojha, R/o Village-Kateya, Post office -Kateya and Police station: Bihiyan, District- Bhojpur(Bihar)

¶5

…………Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand Through Chief Secretary Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan P.O. and P.S- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi., State- Jharkhand

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, Project Building, P.O and P.S- Dhurwa, District-. Ranchi, State-Jharkhand

¶9

The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Project Building, P.O and P.S- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, State Jharkhand 4. Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department (Panchayati Raj) FFP Building, P.O and P.S- Dhurwa, DistrictRanchi, State Jharkhand

¶10

Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Dhurwa, P.O and P.S Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, State - Jharkhand

¶11

Secretary Jharkhand Election Commission, Nirvachan Bhawan, New Market Chowk, Ratu Road, P.O and P.S- New Market and District-Ranchi, State Jharkhand 7. Superintendent of Police, Pakur, P.O.and P.S and DistrictPakur, State-Jharkhand

¶12

The Deputy Commissioner Cum District Election Officer (Panchayat), Pakur, P.O, P.S and District- Pakur. State Jharkhand

¶13

…………. Respondent(s)

¶14

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Chaitali C. Sinha, Advocate Ms. Chainika, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Zaid Imam, A.C. to S.C.VI) Ms. Nidhi Lall, Advocate For Respondent No.6 Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate

¶17

10/08.07.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for following relief:-

¶18

“For issuance of an appropriate Writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) in the Nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to pay

¶19

1

¶20

lumpsum Ex Gratia Payment of Rs 15 lakhs with interest from the date of incident till date of payment @ 12% per annum for the death of her husband namely Late Samhut Ojha who died while on election duty on 14.12.2015 while posted in District Pakur in light of Sankalp issued by the Finance Department of Government of Jharkhand dated 13.09.19 read with Letter No 1563 dated 27.05.15 and Election Commission Of India letter No 218/6/2009/ESP dated 17.02.2009 and letter No.218/6/2014 dated 25th April 2014.”

¶21

The petitioner is the widow of Late Samhut Ojha who joined Jharkhand Police in the year 1981 as Constable No.267,he was assigned election duty (counting of votes) vide letter no 1745548 dated 12.12.15 during the Three-Tier Panchayat Elections held in 2015. While on election duty on 14.12.15, he suddenly fell ill and was brought to the Sadar Hospital Pakur by the police officials where he was declared dead by the doctors. The petitioner made several representations before respondent authorities claiming compensation, but no action was taken. The petitioner also submitted a grievance before the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, which was closed on the ground that the matter was beyond their jurisdiction. Thereafter, by letter dated 05.09.2018, the Secretary, Jharkhand State Election Commission directed the District Election Officer cum Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, to sanction ex-gratia compensation to the family of Late Samhut Ojha under Finance Department Memo 1563 dated 27.05.2015. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the Finance Department Resolution dated 13.09.2019, the ex-gratia amount stands enhanced to ₹15 lakhs, and the petitioner is entitled to the enhanced amount as applicable on the date of actual payment.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the death of Samhut Ojha occurred in the course of and arising out of election duty, thereby entitling his family to ex-gratia compensation under the applicable Election Commission and State Government guidelines. The Election Commission of India, by its letters dated 17.02.2009 and 25.04.2014, mandates payment of ex-gratia compensation to the next of kin of personnel who die while on election duty. The Government of Jharkhand also adopted the said

¶23

2

¶24

policy through Finance Department Memo No. 1563 dated 27.05.2015, making such payment obligatory. The Finance Department Resolution dated 13.09.2019 enhanced the ex-gratia compensation from ₹10 lakhs to ₹15 lakhs. Since, the compensation has not yet been released, the petitioner is entitled to the enhanced amount of ₹15 lakhs with interest from the date of incident till date of payment @ 12% per annum.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that ex-gratia compensation is a policy-based benefit and not a vested or statutory right. The petitioner's claim is subject to verification of eligibility, including proof that the deceased died in the course of and due to election duty, in accordance with the applicable Government policy and Election Commission guidelines. It is further contended that the letter dated 05.09.2018 was only an administrative communication and did not amount to sanction of compensation. The respondents also submit that the petitioner's entitlement, if any, is governed by the policy prevailing on the date of the incident, i.e., 14.12.2015, and therefore the subsequent enhancement of ex-gratia to ₹15 lakhs under the Resolution dated 13.09.2019 is not retrospectively applicable. The claim for interest is also denied, as ex-gratia payment does not carry any statutory or contractual liability to pay interest.

¶26

After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that it is an undisputed fact that the husband of the petitioner was posted to Pakur in 2015 and he was assigned election duty (counting of votes) vide letter no. 1745548 dated 12.12.2015 during the Three-Tier Panchayat Elections held in 2015. He joined the duty however, on 14.12.2015, he suddenly fell ill. He was brought to the Sadar Hospital Pakur, where he was declared brought dead by the doctor. Further, it is also an admitted fact that the ex-gratia compensation of Rs.10 lakh is given to the beneficiary of the deceased as per the letters of the Election Commission of India dated 17.02.2009 and 25.04.2014 and the Government of Jharkhand also adopted the said policy through Finance

¶27

3

¶28

Department Memo No. 1563 dated 27.05.2015, making such payment obligatory.

¶29

An enquiry was conducted vide Memo No. 451 dated 04.09.2021 forming a Joint Magisterial Enquiry Committee comprising of the S.D.O, Pakur and SDPO, Pakur (headquarter) directing them to submit report against three points enumerated therein within one week. The S.D.O, Pakur vide letter dated 18.01.2023 sent Joint Enquiry Report dated 18.01.2023 to the District Election Officer cum Deputy Commissioner, Pakur.

¶30

In the enquiry report it is mentioned that “ attendance register is misplaced consequently, it cannot be said on that day the deceased Constable reported to which officers and when ”. Then the statement of Havildar Ganesh Prasad is recorded, who deposed that that Samhut Ojha was absent from duty on 14.12.2015.

¶31

Based on this statement as noticed above the conclusion arrived in the enquiry report is that late Constable No. 267, Samhut Ojha, was deployed for maintenance of law and order during the counting of votes for the Three-Tier Panchayat Elections, 2015. Although he died during the vote-counting period, on 14.12.2015, the date of his death, he was not present at the vote-counting centre.

¶32

I find that conclusion so arrived by the respondents is misconceived as it came in the enquiry report that attendance register was missing and it cannot be inferred without it that the deceased Constable had not reported to election duty on that day. Further, the statement of Havildar Ganesh Prasad could not shake the fact that deceased had died during the vote-counting period, on 14.12.2015. Further, the letter dated 14.09.2016 written by Superintendent of police, Pakur to the District Election Officer cum Deputy Commissioner, Pakur also supports the fact that the deceased was on election counting duty on 14.12.2015, when he suddenly fell ill and came to police headquarters, Pakur where his health worsened and the people present there took him to the Sadar hospital, Pakur and doctors declared him brought dead. It is not the

¶33

4

¶34

case of the respondents that he did not work on 13.12.2015. He worked on 13.12.2015 and died on the next date.

¶35

The main object for providing the ex-gratia compensation is to encourage and boost the morale of the members of the police force/government employees and to extend adequate support to their families in the event of their death during the election duty. Undisputedly, this is a beneficial policy and therefore, it needs to be construed and applied liberally.

¶36

Considering the aforesaid facts, I find that the petitioner is entitled to get the ex-gratia amount of Rs. 10 lakhs as per the policy prevailing on the date of the incident, i.e., 14.12.2015. The prayer of the petitioner for ex-gratia Payment of Rs 15 lakhs with interest from the date of incident in the light of Resolution issued by the Finance Department of Government of Jharkhand dated 13.09.2019 cannot be accepted as the subsequent enhancement of ex-gratia to ₹15 lakhs under the Resolution dated 13.09.2019 is not retrospectively applicable.

¶37

The respondent-State is directed to pay the ex-gratia amount of Rs. 10 lakhs with interest to petitioner within two months. The amount will carry an interest @ 6% from the date of death till the date of payment.

¶38

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶39

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶40

08^th July, 2026. Anu/-Cp2.

¶41

Uploaded on: 14 /07/2026.

¶42

5

Kanchan Devi v. the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchan Devi v. the State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oceanik Builditech and Construction Pvt. Ltd. Thro Its Authorized Officer Ashwani K Rai Vs Bank of India, through Its Branch Manager

Mr. Pramod Kumar Jayaswal Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Pahalwan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand

M/S S.M. Poultry, Partnership Concern, Thro Its Partner Mr. Shambhu Kumar Vs Authorized Officer, Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch

Laxmi Chandravanshi Medical College and Hospital, Thro Its Deputy Director Sri Anurag Chandravanshi Vs National Medical Commission Thro Its Chairman

Rahul Paul Vs National Medical Commission, through Its Chairman