CHARANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 21.11.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P (C) No.7024/2007, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner -appellant herein was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner -appellant had filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge claiming additional compensation for rehabilitation alleging damages of commercial/industrial property on the ground that he was a riot affected victim which broke out in the year 1984 after the death of the then Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi. The petitioner -appellant however had never filed any claim before any authority claiming ex -gratia payment/compensation from the year 1984 to 1992. But, in the year 1992, he suddenly filed a claim for compensation and the matter was decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, against the appellant wherein it was held that he had failed to prove that he was a riot affected victim. The appellant did not challenge this order before any authority and thus acquiesced with the rejection of his claim. A circular was subsequently issued by the Government of India in the year 2006 dated 16.1.2006, which envisaged that the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Haryana, Bihar, Jharkhand, J and K, Himachal Pradesh, Orissa, Maharashtra, Uttaranchal, Punjab and NCT of Delhi would take immediate and necessary steps to grant ex -gratia payment for the assistance to the victims of 1984 riots as per the guidelines issued. The guidelines envisaged that in cases where claimants are supported by proof of having received the amount of compensation paid by the State Government earlier, that may be considered as adequate and no additional proof may be required. It further indicated that it should be ensured that the claims are not rejected on technical/flimsy grounds. From this circular, it was clear that the additional payment towards compensation was to be made by the Central Government to the riot victims and for making payment, a proof had to be given by the victim claimant by furnishing an order passed in favour of the riot victim by the State Government. To make the position explicitly clear, it may be further explained that only those riot victims who had been granted ex -gratia payment earlier, were held eligible to claim additional compensation in the year 2006 from the Central Government as per the circular.

(3.) THE claim of the appellant, therefore, has rightly not been entertained by the learned Single Judge. Consequently this appeal is dismissed.