ANAR DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A counter affidavit is being filed on behalf of the State respondents. Let it be kept on the record.

(2.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this writ application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. In this writ application prayer of the petitioner is set out in paragraph 1 which reads as follows : - ''That this writ petition is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents to pay Rs. 70000/ - (seventy thousand) as recommended by the Committee appointed by the Vice -Chancellor, Patna University to be paid to the petitioner on account of the fatal accident of the petitioner 's husband and also revision of family pension of the petitioner, according to revised rate from 1.3.1989 with interest thereon. ''

(3.) IN this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents wherein, inter alia, it is stated that a sum of Rs. 1,12,660/ - was paid to the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna, for the services rendered. It is further stated that no officer of the department was present at the time of accident as the said work was being done by the agency, namely, Bihar College of Engineering. It is admitted that the work order was given by the Superintending Engineer, Flood Control, Buxar, vide letter dated 7.6.87 to the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna, and the State respondent has paid a sum of Rs. 1,12,660/ - for the work performed by the agency. With reference to the statement made in the counter affidavit, it is submitted that in the background of the case, the State respondent is not liable to pay any compensation except what have been paid to the agency for the work done by its employee. As stated above, on the requisition having been received by the State respondents the employee was sent to perform his duties and in course of performing his duties he met with an accident as a result he died. A committee has also been constituted by the University to enquire into as to who is liable to pay the compensation in the facts and circumstances of this case and the committee has come to the conclusion that it is the State respondent who is liable to pay the compensation as sought for by the petitioner.