SUNAINA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed to change the name of district mentioned in the address of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 as "Ranchi" in place of "Giridih". Office is directed to make necessary correction in the address portion of the respondent nos. 2 and 3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing sanction order as contained in memo no. 6597 dtd. 5/10/2021 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) issued by the Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Jaguar (STF), Ranchi to the extent of giving the petitioners only 25% of the lump-sum amount as death benefit of their deceased son whereas the respondent no. 5, who is the widow of the deceased, has been given 75% of the same. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to make payment to the petitioners in equal proportion of the death compensation of their son.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the parents of one Hardwar Sah, who was posted in Jaguar Camp, Jharkhand Jaguar, Village-Tendar, Ratu, Ranchi and unfortunately on 4/3/2021, he got martyred during an operation against extremists in Toklo Police Station under Chaibasa district. The respondent no. 2 vide order as contained in memo no. 6597 dtd. 5/10/2021 has apportioned 25% of the lump-sum amount as death benefit to the petitioners according to the scheme of the Government of Jharkhand in which the total salary is calculated from the date of death till the date of retirement and 75% of the same has been given to the respondent no. 5. It is further submitted that the marriage between the deceased and the respondent no. 5 was solemnized on 28/6/2012 and when he came to know that the respondent no. 5 had illicit relationship with a relative namely, Rahul Kumar Saw (son of the brother-in-law of the uncle of the deceased), he filed a complaint case before the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi being Complaint Case No. 4999 of 2020 under Sec. 497 of IPC, which is still pending. He also filed a Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 430 of 2020 seeking divorce from the respondent no. 5 on the ground of adultery and the said divorce case is also pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. It is also submitted that the respondent no. 5 has also lodged an FIR in Mahila P.S, Palamau being Mahila P.S Case No. 20 of 2020 dtd. 14/12/2020 under Ss. 498A/341/323/504/506 IPC and Sec. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and in the said case, the deceased had taken recourse of anticipatory bail. The next date in the said case was fixed for 8/3/2021 and in the meantime, he died. It would appear from the aforesaid facts that the relationship between the deceased and the respondent no. 5 was strained and as such the apportionment of death compensation amount in aforesaid ratio is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners represented the Superintendent of Police, Jharkhand Jaguar, Village-Tendar, Ratu, Ranchi on 3/4/2021, however, no action was taken. The respondents are duty bound to consider that the petitioners being the parents of the deceased and are senior citizens having no other alternative source of income and were solely dependent on the deceased's salary. The apportionment should have been done taking into consideration the strained relationship between the deceased and the respondent no. 5.

(3.) On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the apportionment of the payment of death compensation has been made in conformity with memo no. 4512 dtd. 21/8/2019 issued by the Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, which needs no interference under extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.