RANJANA KUMARI Vs. JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter no. 4362 dated 11.09.2004 issued by the respondent no. 3 whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner under the Accident Compensation Scheme, 1988 of BSEB has been rejected. The facts which arise from the writ application is that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Junior Electrical Engineer by the Bihar State Electricity Board. The husband of the petitioner was lastly posted as Junior Electrical Engineer in Electrical Supply Sub- Division, Chandil under Electric Supply Circle, Chaibasa. On 15.06.2003 while the husband of the petitioner was going to Village Palgram Chouka for official work he met with an accident with Truck No. WB-03/3856 near Village Sharbera, Chandil resulting in instant death. A case being Chandil P.S. Case No. 83 of 2003 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A, 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Since it was the case of the petitioner that her husband died in course of and during employment as he was assigned to do official work when he met with an accident the petitioner submitted an application for accidental benefits in terms of the Scheme formulated by the Board. The application under the Accident Compensation Scheme, 1988 was forwarded by the competent authority and ultimately the impugned order as contained in letter No. 4362 dated 11.09.2004 was issued in which the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the said claim is not covered under the Scheme of the Board. Subsequently, the petitioner could come to know that the scope of the Scheme as envisaged in Clause 3 of the Scheme of 1988 was deleted and substituted by a new clause in terms of the Resolution No. 63 dated 15.01.1999 and in such circumstances the petitioner has preferred the present writ application for quashing the Resolution dated 15.01.1999 as well as for quashing the letter No. 4362 dated 11.09.2004 rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

(2.) Heard Mrs. Sheela Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. Mrs. Sheela Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Accident Compensation Scheme, 1988 was initially a beneficiary Scheme in consonance with the Workmen's Compensation Act but subsequently the eligible criteria has been made stringent by imposing several conditions which in effect basically frustrates the purpose of the Scheme. It has further been submitted that while issuing Resolution dated 15.01.1999 the very object and purpose resulting in formulation of the Accident Compensation Scheme, 1988 was totally ignored and no prudent man can fulfill the conditions which are presently in vogue. The initial provision with respect to Clause 3 of the Scheme of 1988 was infact a beneficial provision and should have remained so but for the Resolution dated 15.01.1999 which the respondents being instrumentality of the State could not have brought into existence as the said Resolution is not in consistence with the Workmen's Compensation Act. In the light of the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner she has submitted that her claim for the benefits under the Scheme on account of death of her husband could not have been rejected as there was a direct proximity with the assignment entrusted to her late husband and the subsequent death which was in course of employment.

(3.) Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected in view of the constituted/replaced Clause 3 of the Scheme of 1988 by virtue of Resolution dated 15.01.1999 and since the respondent-Board had acted in terms of its policy decision the said order cannot be faulted or cannot be said to be beyond the purview of the authority concerned. With respect to the Resolution dated 15.01.1999, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the said substitution/amendment/modification does not close the door for eligible persons as only certain conditions have to be fulfilled in order to derive the benefits under the Accident Compensation Scheme, 1988.