DIPALI MANDAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner has claimed that her husband Biren Mandal was seriously injured on the date of Supper Cyclone and ultimately died of the said injury suffered during super cyclone.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the State Government has declared that an ex gratia assistance of Rs. 75,000/ - in case of death in the super cyclone will be given to the near relations of those who died in the super cyclone. The petitioner submitted her claim before the authorities for the said ex gratia assistance on account of death of her husband. It is stated that the petitioner's claim was not considered on the ground that the petitioner's husband did not die on October 29 or 30, 1999, i.e. the dates of the super cyclone.

(3.) THE state Govt. itself has announced ex gratia financial assistance for those who died in the super cyclone. Those who sustained injuries on the days of the super cyclone and subsequently died of the said injury are also persons who died due to the super cyclone. There is no intelligible distinction and difference between these two groups of persons. There is no justification for treating these two groups differently and excluding those who were seriously injured on the date of super cyclone but died subsequently due to the said injury. Exclusion of the said group is ex facie contrary to the object and purpose of grant of such ex gratia assistance. Of course, it is for the claimants to establish with cogent materials and supporting evidence that the deceased suffered injury in the super cyclone on the dates of the super cyclone and that he died of the said injury. The State Govt. is also at liberty to lay down appropriate procedure for establishment of the said two ingredients and to set up a suitable mechanism for necessary determination but it cannot exclude the said group from the benefit of the Scheme.