SUSHEELA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner No. 1 Susheela was the wife and the petitioner No. 2 is the mother, of one M. S. Patil. During the pendency of this petition, since the petitioner No. 1 has expired, her two minor sons Shankar and Shambu were brought on record and they are represented by their guardian and grandmother, the petitioner No. 2.

(2.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents to grant and release a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 in favour of the petitioners on account of the brutal murder of the said M. S. Patil on 15. 9. 1993 by a gang of wood smugglers, when he tried to catch hold of them while he was guarding the Government forest as a Forest Guard. 2-A. It is the case of the petitioners that late Patil was married to the petitioner No. 1 on 1. 5. 1987, and as a result of the wedlock, two sons, the aforesaid Shankar and shambu, were born and the family was leading a very happy life with the limited wages earned by the said Patil. It is the further case of the petitioners that the said patil was the Forest Guard in the Department of Forest, Government of Karnataka, and was working on daily wage basis with effect from 15. 7. 1986. It is asserted in the petition that the said Patil was discharging his duties honestly and in the best interest of the State and 'was keenly observing the gang of wood cutters with a view to protect the forest growth and improve the forest wealth and maintain ecological balance'. It is further asserted that he used to go deep into thick forest to prevent stealing of valuable forest produce by the wood smugglers; and while he was discharging his duties in the best interest of the State as a forest Guard, a gang of wood smugglers in the middle of thick forest of Melmuri village in Haveri taluk, brutally murdered him on 15. 9. 93. It is the further case of the petitioners that on account of the murder of the said Patil, his wife, her two minor children and the mother of the said Patil had to face irreparable injury, hardship and misery on account of financial difficulties; and to bear the financial loss and difficulties, petitioner No. 1 sent a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, on 29. 10. 1993 seeking compensation for the loss of dependency as the said Patil died in the course of his employment; and in response to the said representation, the deputy Commissioner sent an endorsement dated 29. 11. 1993, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure B to the petition, informing the petitioner No. 1 that her representation was forwarded to the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Gadag subdivision, for appropriate action and the deputy Conservator of Forests was pursuing the matter with higher authorities for appropriate action and, therefore, the petitioner No. 1 may contact the officers of the forest Department at Gadag Sub-Division for further enquiry in the matter. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 also had received a communication dated 15. 1. 94 written by the respondent No. 2 through the Deputy conservator of Forest, Gadag Subdivision, wherein it was stated that in terms of the government Order dated 6. 8. 1990, there is no provision to pay any compensation/ monetary benefit to daily wage watchman who was murdered. A copy of the said communication was produced as Annexure c to the petition.

(3.) THE respondents have filed statement of objections and resisted the claim made by the petitioners on the ground that there is no provision under the rules to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, it is admitted by the respondents that deceased patil was working as a Forest Watcher on daily wage basis with effect from 15. 7. 86 and he was murdered while he was on duty. It is further stated in the statement of objections that since the said Patil had served the department on daily wage basis only for about 7 years and 2 months and he was not employed on or before 1. 7. 1984, his services could not be regularised in terms of the Government Order dated 6. 8. 1990 bearing No. DPAR 2 SLC 90. It is also stated that the name of the said Patil was included in the list of martyrs maintained by the Department of Forest. It is useful to refer to the statements made in para 3 of the statement of objections, which read as under: