Sunita Devi Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad (Sc-8) ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

Date : 22-12-2025

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶17

counsel for the State.

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed for the

¶19

following relief/s:-

¶20

“I. For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS, commanding and directing the Respondent Authorities to pay the amount of Rs. 10 Lacs as ex-gratia

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.734 of 2022 dt.22-12-2025

¶22

2/8

¶23

grant to the petitioner pursuant to the Finance Department Resolution contained in memo no.78/2005-1441 dated 10.10.2013 on the ground that the husband of the petitioner met an accident on 11.07.2016 during the course of discharge of his duty and subsequently he died on 12.07.2016.

¶24

(II) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS, commanding and directing the Respondent Authorities to pay the interest over the amount of ex-gratia grant to the petitioner on the ground that the delay has been occurred due to latches and inaction on the part of the Respondents.

¶25

(III) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.734 of 2022 dt.22-12-2025 3/8

¶27

the case.”

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶29

the husband of the petitioner was posted as an Assistant SubInspector of Police in Bachhwara Rail Police Station. He submits that the husband of the petitioner along with the Station Head Officer of Bachhwara Rail Police Station and others proceeded from the police station by a government Bolero vehicle on 11.07.2016 to Barauni for raid in connection with Bachhwara Rail P.S Case No. 01 of 2016 registered for the offence under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. But, in the way, the said Bolero vehicle met with an accident with a Maruti Swift Car bearing Registration No. BR9P-3582. In result, the petitioner’s husband died. Counsel submits that after the death of the petitioner’s husband, the Superintendent of Police recommended his case for the grant of ex-gratia amont of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs), as the petitioner’s husband died while discharging his duties. Counsel submits that according to the Circular/Resolution contained in Memo No.78/2005-1441 dated 10.10.2013 (Annexure-P/4), it is categorically stated that while discharging duty, if, accident took place which resulted into death, then the dependent of that government servant become entitled to receive the e x-gratia

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.734 of 2022 dt.22-12-2025 4/8

¶31

amount. He submits that the said ex-gratia amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) has not been granted to the petitioner till date, and in-spite of the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police, the payment has not been made. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed for the said relief.

¶32

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the petitioner is not entitled for ex-gratia amount, as the petitioner has already received accidental claim. But, the present case is not covered under the claim which the petitioner is demanding in the name of grant of ex-gratia during active performance of duty. He submits that there is distinction between discharging of duty and active performance of duty. He further submits that the case of the petitioner does not come under the active performance of duty and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of ex-gratia, particularly in the light of Clause 3 and 4 of the Circular/Resolution contained in Memo No.78/2005-1441 dated 10.10.2013 (Annexure-P/4).

¶33

With a view to adjudicate the claim, it is necessary to quote the said Circular/Resolution contained in Memo No.78/2005-1441 dated 10.10.2013 (Annexure-P/4) which is as follows:-

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.734 of 2022 dt.22-12-2025 5/8

¶35

It transpires to this Court that the subject under

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.734 of 2022 dt.22-12-2025 6/8

¶37

which the said Circular/Resolution has been issued is already quoted above and the subject is very clear i.e. “drZO; vof/k esa lfØ; drZO; fuoZgu ds Øe esa nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k e`R;q gksus ij ljdkjh lsodksa ds vkfJrksa dks vuqxzg vuqnku dh Loh—fr.”

¶38

Here in the present case, the husband of the petitioner admittedly working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in Bachhwara Rail Police Station and admittedly being a member of the raid party relating to Bachhwara Rail P.S Case No. 01 of 2016 registered for the offence under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, the husband of the petitioner along with other police personnel were going by Bolero vehicle towards Teghra police station, but in the meantime, the collision takes place between a Maruti Swift Car bearing Registration No. BR9P-3582 and the Bolero vehicle, due to which the said Bolero vehicle in which the petitioner’s husband and others were sitting went into 20 ft. ditch and in result, the petitioner's husband died.

¶39

There are three aspects of the matter which is necessary to be discussed here. Upon a specific query, learned counsel for the State submits that the insurance of government vehicle is not required and no government vehicle is used to be insured. Whether the government has taken effort for realization

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.734 of 2022 dt.22-12-2025 7/8

¶41

of the insurance money from the owner of Maruti vehicle whose number was apparent in the FIR itself, it has been intimated by both the counsel that they are not aware of this fact that whether the government has tried or made any effort for realization of the said amount either from the Insurance Company or from the owner of said Maruti Car, as under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act No. 59 of 1988) the law said so. But after recommendation of ex-gratia amount of Rs. 10,00,000/(Rupees Ten Lakhs) by the Superintendent of Police, the State at the highest level started opposing the same on the ground that the said death has not taken place during the active performance of duty, but it may have taken place during discharging of duty.

¶42

It is an unfortunate situation that in India, which is described as a welfare State, no insurance was taken for the government vehicle, no effort was made by the State to provide insurance coverage to the petitioner’s husband under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and ex-gratia assistance has also been denied, despite the same being governed by Annexure P/4, i.e., the Circular/Resolution contained in Memo No. 78/2005-1441 dated 10.10.2013. On the ground that the petitioner’s case does not fall under active performance of duty, this Court does not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the State

¶43

Patna High Court CWJC No.734 of 2022 dt.22-12-2025 8/8

¶44

and directs that every circular ought to be interpreted in a positive manner. Admittedly, from the FIR it transpires that the petitioner was actively part of the raid team and was proceeding towards Teghra Police Station, and during his active duty hours, the accident took place.

¶45

Hence, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner is entitled for grant of ex-gratia amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs). It is hereby directed that the said payment be made to the petitioner within six months from the date of production of receipt/copy of this order.

¶46

Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ petition stands allowed.

¶47

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶48

Divyansh/-

¶49

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	23/12/2025
Transmission Date	NA

Sunita Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Devi v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishori Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Sahid Khan @ Shahid Khan @ Sahid @ Sajid @ Sazid Vs The State of Bihar

Chote Lal Singh @ Chote Lal Kushwaha Vs The State of Bihar

Raj Kamal Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Nirmala Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Niraj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar