Dismissed

Raghunatha Palei v. Principal Secy. Govt.of Odisha

Orissa HC9 Nov 2021WP(C)/6585/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought compensation for a handicapped petitioner under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner belonging to the general category could not claim compensation as the Rules apply only to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

What the court decided

AI extract

Raghunatha Palei Vs Principal Secy. Govt.of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 6585 of 2021

¶3

(Through Hybrid Mode)

¶4

….. Petitioner Raghunatha Palei

¶5

Mr. C.R. Pattnaik, Advocate Vs. Principal Secy. Govt. of ….. Opposite Parties Odisha & Ors. Mr. A.K.Sharma, AGA

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

¶7

ORDER
09.11.2021

¶8

Order No. 03.

¶9

Mr. Pattnaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is handicapped person, who seeks compensation in terms of serial no. 43 in annexure 1 in schedule of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, by memo dated 29^th January, 2021, Collector, Keonjhar rejected the claim mainly on ground that petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes category. He is of general category.

¶10

Mr. Patnaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner submits further that Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 came before Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

// 2 //

¶13

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Act of 1955 was with object and reasons for enforcement of any disability arising out of untouchability, to be an offence punishable in accordance with law. His client being a disabled person is therefore covered by said Act. The subsequent Act of 1989 may have been directed towards Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, but it was enacted because members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were being denied number of civil rights. Hence, disability under the Act of 1955 would entitle petitioner to relief under sub-rule (4) in rule 12 of the Rules of 1995. The scale provided in annexure-1 referred to in sub rule (4) makes application of serial no.43 in said annexure to petitioner. Mr. Sharma, reiterates that serial no.43 is not attracted to petitioner’s claim since he is of general category.

¶14

Serial no.43 in annexure 1 in the rules provides for compensation payable on disability. Petitioner is claiming to be handicapped and, therefore, entitled. 4. There is no dispute that petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes category. He is of general category. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 defines ‘victim’ in clause (ec) of section 2. Said clause says, a victim is any individual, who falls within the definition of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 2. Petitioner being of general category does not satisfy meaning victim given in the Act. Moreover, ‘atrocity’ has been given meaning in clause (a) in the definitions

¶15

Page 2 of 3

¶16

// 3 //

¶17

section, to be an offence punishable under section 3. Petitioner in paragraph 6 of the petition has pleaded pendency of several criminal cases on accusations made under IPC, 1860.

¶18

Section 23 in the Act gives power to Central Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying out purposes of the Act. Serial no.43 in annexure-1 to the schedule must therefore relate to disabled persons, who qualify for compensation under the Act. Petitioner not belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes category cannot invoke the entry by serial no.43 for payment of compensation on disability suffered.

¶19

Reliance is placed on behalf of petitioner on word ‘disability’ used in statement of objects and reasons in Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. It is social disability and that would be clear from clause-c in the statement of objects and reasons, which says as follows:-

¶20

“(c) whoever takes any part in the excommunication of, or imposition of any social disability on, any person who refuses to practice untouchability or does any act in furtherance of the objects of this new law will also be guilty of an offence;”

¶21

Petitioner has not been able to make out a case for compensation on seeking applicability of either the 1955 Act or the 1989 Act.

¶22

The writ petition is without merit and it is dismissed.

¶23

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

¶24

Prasant

¶25

Page 3 of 3

Raghunatha Palei v. Principal Secy. Govt.of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Raghunatha Palei v. Principal Secy. Govt.of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Odisha Vs Radhakanta Tripathy

Sudam Tandi Vs State of Odisha

Ajaya Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Rena@Runu Nayak Vs Namita Nayak

Md. Qaisar Iqbal Ali Vs State of Odisha

Dr.Panchanan Sahoo Vs Subhashree Sahoo