Allowed

A.Devaraj, S/o.Aadhimoolam v. The District Collector

Madras HC8 Feb 2018WP/6447/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking compensation under the Chief Minister's Ulavargal Pathukappu Thittam Scheme for the death by snake bite of the petitioner's 15-year-old daughter. The court held that the age limit applies only to primary members for enrollment, not family members claiming benefits, quashing the rejection. Compenstion directed within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; respondents directed to grant compensation under the Scheme within four weeks.

A.Devaraj, S/o.Aadhimoolam Vs The District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 08.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

W.P.No.6447 of 2017

A.Devaraj

... Petitioner

vs.

The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

¶10

The Tahsildhar, (Social Welfare Scheme),

¶11

Marakkanam,

¶12

Villupuram District. ..Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent made in Na.Ka.No.A-7/291/2017 dated 21.2.2017 to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to forthwith grant compensation to the petitioner towards the death of his daughter Ms.Sangavui due to snake bite.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.D.Suriyanarayanan,

¶16

Additional Government Pleader

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the 2^nd respondent dated 21.02.2017, wherein and whereby, the petitioner's request for grant of compensation towards the death of his daughter namely, Sangavi, who died due to snake bite, was rejected on the reason that she was only 15 years old at the time of death, while the Scheme under which the petitioner seeks compensation refers the eligible criteria for such of those persons who come within the age of 18 and 65 years alone. Consequently, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to forthwith grant compensation to the petitioner.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

It is seen that the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.(Ms)No.265 Revenue Department dated 10.09.2011 and introduced a Scheme called “Chief Minister's Ulavargal Pathukappu Thittam” for extending financial assistance to the farmers and agricultural labourers, under certain circumstances and eventualities during their lifetime. The petitioner is an agricultural labourer and a member under the said Scheme with Reg.No.VPR/GP002/0195. His daughter by name, Sangavi, who was a school going girl was bitten by a snake on 08.10.2012 at their house and consequently, she died resulting out of such snake bite. A criminal case filed in Crime No.532/12 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. was also closed. Since the petitioner is entitled to get the monetary benefits under the above said Scheme, he made an application before the first respondent on 24.12.2012 for extending such benefit. However, the said request was rejected by the 2^nd respondent by issuing the impugned order, only on the reason that the petitioner's daughter was 15 years old at the time of her death due to snake bite, while the benefit under the said Scheme could be extended only in respect of persons who come within the age group of 18 to 65.

¶21

Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited this Court's attention to the said Scheme and submitted that the 2^nd respondent has erroneously rejected the request of the petitioner without applying his mind to the said Scheme in a proper and perspective manner, as the age criteria referred to in the impugned order is applicable only for becoming a member under the said Scheme and not to have the benefit out of the said Scheme in respect of the family members of such member. Therefore, he submitted that the reasoning of the 2^nd respondent is against the very said Scheme.

¶22

Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, reiterated the reasons stated in the impugned communication and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the above benefit. A counter is also filed by the 2^nd respondent to that effect.

¶23

Heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶24

There is no dispute to the fact that there is a scheme called “Chief Minister's Ulavargal Pathukappu Thittam” under which the claim as raised by the petitioner herein can be made for extending the financial assistance or compensation even in respect of the death occurred due to snake bite. The petitioner has become a member under the said Scheme. The only objection raised by the respondents is with regard to the age of the deceased, namely, the petitioner's daughter.

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

I have given careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides as well as the said Scheme under which the petitioner seeks for compensation. The relevant Clause of the said Scheme is extracted as hereunder.

¶27

m) jpl;lj;jpw;fhd jfjp tiuaiwfs;:

¶28

(i) 2/50 Vf;fUf;f nkw;glhj ed;bra; epyj;ij my;yJ 5/00 Vf;fUf;F nkw;glhj g[d;bra; ep[yj;ij brhe;jkhf itj;jpUe;J kw;Wk; me;j epyj;jpy; neuoahf gaph; bra;a[k; 18 taJ Kjy; 65 taJ tiu cs;s midj;J FWrpW tpthrhapfs; (neuo tptrhak; bra;gth;) kw;Wk; tptrhak; kw;Wk; tptrhak; rhh;e;j bjhHpypy; Cjpaj;jpw;fhfnth my;yJ Fj;jif mog;gilapnyh <Lgl;:Ls;s 18 taJ Kjy; 65 taJ tiu cs;s midj;J Fj;jifjhuh;f;s kw;Wk; bjhHpyhsh;fs; ,e;jj; jpl;lj;jpd; fPH; K:y cWg;gpdh;fshf gjpt[ bgw jFjp cs;sth;fshth;/ nkYk;. mth;fisr; rhh;e;J thKk; FLk;g cWg;gpdh;fSk; ,j;jpl;lj;jpd; fPH; cWg;gpduhfg; gjpt[ bra;a jFjpahdth;fs;/

¶29

Perusal of the above said Clause would undoubtedly show that only to become a primary member in the said Scheme, one should be between the age of 18 and 65 and not to have the benefit arising out of the said Scheme. In other words, the said Scheme is to be applied not only to the members who got enrolled themselves under the said scheme and also to their family members for whom, there is no age limit fixed, since they automatically become ordinary members under the said Scheme in view of clause 13 (ii) therein for availing the said benefit. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in rejecting the benefit under the said Scheme to the petitioner only on the reason that the petitioner's daughter died at the age of 10 due to snake bite. The respondents, unfortunately did not consider the above aspects and rejected the claim of the petitioner mechanically, especially, when the said Scheme is introduced only to benefit the poor farmers and their family members. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to extend\ the benefit of compensation under the above said Scheme to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶30

Assistant Registrar Dt.15.2.18 //True Copy//

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

¶34

The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram.

¶35

The Tahsildhar, (Social Welfare Scheme), Marakkanam, Villupuram District.

¶36

+1 cc to Mr.L.Chandrakumar,advocate,sr10337

¶37

+1 cc to Spl.Govt.Pleader,sr.10304.

¶38

Krd 17/2
W.P.No.6447 of 2017

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A.Devaraj, S/o.Aadhimoolam v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Devaraj, S/o.Aadhimoolam v. The District Collector

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

Mrs.G.Revathi, Vs The Revenue Divisional

C.P.Senthilkumar Vs The Principal Secretary to

M/s.Sri Ramana Scan Centre Vs The State of Tamil nadu

D.Suresh Vs The Regional Transport Officer

C.Ramasamy Vs The Chairman Hill Areas

Vrishank Magesh Babu, Vs The Secretary to Government