Heard Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of Letter No. 313 dated 16.07.2012 whereby claim of the petitioner for compensation has been
rejected. Further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondent to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs on the ground that husband
of the petitioner namely, Sukra Oraon died in the Panchyat Election, 2010.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner Late Sukra Oraon was employed in
State Auxiliary Police as constable who was provided duty to attend Panchayat Election scheduled to be held in the year, 2010 in the district Khunti
and Kaman was issued to election duty along with other police personnel on 22.11.2010. He further submits that while discharging his duty in the
panchayat election, 2010 in Khunti husband of the petitioner late Sukra Oraon died on 16.12.2010. He further submits that the husband of the
petitioner was taken to hospital where he died. He further submits that the husband of the petitioner was not having any disease and post-mortem
report also not reveals that from earlier he has any disease. He further submits that after death in view of the Circular of the State Government, the
petitioner applied for compensation which was rejected by Letter dated 16.07.2012 contained in Annexure-4 of the writ petition.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Circular No. 648 dated 20.03.2008 and submits that petitioner is entitled for
compensation in view of aforesaid Circular. He further submits that in view of further Circular dated 13.01.2011, whereby amendment has been
brought by the said Circular, Panchyati Raj Department has also been brought under the said Circular, petitioner is entitled for compensation. He
further relied upon the judgment in the case of “Bachan Devi Vs. Govt. of Jharkhand & Ors.†reported in 2018 (1) JLJR 663 and submits that a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considering the Circular No.376 dated 04.11.2006 of Government of Jharkhand, has directed to pay compensation to
the petitioner. He further submits that case of the petitioner is fully covered in view of judgment of Co-ordinate Bench in the case of “Bachan
Devi†(Supra).
Per contra, Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that there is no Circular with regard to Panchayati Raj
Department and that is why impugned letter has been issued. He further submits that Circular relied upon by the petitioner is of the year, 2008, which
is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as it has not been issued by the Personnel Department whereas it has been issued by the
Urban Development Department. He further submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has considered the case of ‘Bachan Devi’ (Supra)
and also considered the said Circular of the year, 2008, 2006 as well as 2011 and came to the finding that Circular of 2006 is not with regard to all the
Departments as it has not been issued by the Personnel Department. He further submits that these facts have been minutely considered by the Co-
ordinate Bench in the case of “Jyanti Munda Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors†passed in W.P.(C) No. 830 of 2016 which was dismissed vide
order dated 06.11.2019. He refers to para no. V of the said judgment and submits that the Co-ordinate bench has distinguished the judgment of the
Co-ordinate Bench in the case of “Bachan Devi†(Supra) has also considered the said Circular on which petitioner is relying. He further submits
that case of this petitioner is of same department as in the case of “Jyanati Munda†passed by the Coordinate Bench. He further submits that
except the district, all the facts are similar.
This court has perused the impugned order as well as judgment of the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the case of “Bachan Devi†(Supra)
and “Jyanti Devi†( Supra), sofar as the contention of Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to “Bachan
Devi†case is concerned, which is distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case as in that case the petitioner has placed his reliance of
Circular No. 376 dated 04.11.2006, the said Circular is meant for Lok Sabha Election and in the case of “Bachan Devi†deceased-employee was
on duty of Lok Sabha Election and that is why Circular is fully applicable in the case of “Bachan Devi†whereas in the present case petitioner
was on duty in Panchayati Raj Election. The Circular relied upon by Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner was Circular No.
648 dated 20.03.2008 has been issued by the Urban Development Department, this is not in consonance with Article 166 of the Constitution of India
as in the executive business, State Government is conferred with the power to make out a business rule to govern business of the State or the different
department of the State. It is well-known that Personnel department of the State has been conferred power to make out rule make it to the nodal
department to make out rule. It is well-known that if a Circular is issued by the Personnel Department that is applicable on all the Department, this
fact has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of “Jayanti Munda†(supra) which is quote here-in-below:-
“ 4…………..â€The reliance having been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment rendered by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bachan Devi Vs. Government of Jharkhand, the same is distinguishable on fact as because in
that case the husband of the petitioner had been assigned to discharge election pertaining to the Lok Sabha conducted in the year, 2009
and the Court has considered the effect of the Circular no. 376 dated 04.11.2006 but since there is no circular governing with respect to
the Panchayati Raj Department, the said judgment is not applicable on fact in this case.
5. After having heard counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions this Court while answering the issue having been
agitated by the parties deem it fit and proper to deal with the issue of the applicability of the circular either of the Urban Development
Department upon which the petitioner has tried to make out her case for getting the benefit of lump sum compensation.
It is not in dispute that under the provision of Article 166 of the Constitution of India every State is the Government of State, is conferred
with the power to make out a business rule to govern business of the State or the different department of the State.
In the light of the said provision of the State of Jharkhand has come out with the rules of business wherein the allocation of business has
been bifurcated in between the different department allocating the different work to be done by the departments. The Personnel Department
of the State has been conferred with the power to make out rule make it the nodal department to make out rule. If the Personnel Department
makes out a rule, the same binds every department making it applicable. If the Personnel Department is coming out with specific rule the
benefit is to be extended to each employee irrespective of the departments. Here the admitted fact is that the petitioner is trying to derive the
circular issued by the Urban Development Department i.e Circular dated 20.03.2008 because of the reason that the Panchayati Raj
Department has not come out with any scheme for consideration of cases for extending the benefit of ex-gratia lump sum compensation.â€
The contention of Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to Circular of the year, 2011 is also not helping the
petitioner as that Circular has come into effect w.e.f. 13.01.2011 which is not retrospective in nature wherein date of death of the husband of the
petitioner is 16.12.2010. The alternative argument advanced by Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner is not helping the
petitioner in this case as this case has not been filed on the ground of equity or demanding discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised by the Court in even situation in particular facts and
circumstances of the case wherein in this case petitioner has sought for relief relying on Circulars and “Bachan Devi†(supra). In view of above
facts and considering that the Co-ordinate Bench has already discussed the similar facts in the case of “Jyanti Munda†(Supra) and the fact of
this case is fully covered with the case of “Jyanti Munda†(Supra), no relief can be extended to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is
dismissed.
