IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 1916 of 2011(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.P.MATHAI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.PAILY, PALLITHAZHATHU HOUSE, MUTTITHADI.P.O., VELOOPPADAM KARA, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.R.REENA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN-680 307. 4. THE RANGE OFFICER, PALAPPILLY FOREST RANGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN-680 304. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 1916 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 8th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a watcher in the Palappally Forest Range. He is working as such for the past 21 years. While he was on his duties on 8.9.2010 by about 4.30 a.m., the petitioner suffered a snake bite. He had to undergo prolonged treatment for the same. According to the petitioner, the petitioner spent about Rs. 60,000/-. The petitioner filed an application for reimbursement/compensation. But the petitioner was paid only an amount of Rs. 5,000/- by Ext. P3 order. The petitioner is aggrieved by the limiting of the amount to Rs.5,000/-. According to the petitioner, since the petitioner had suffered the snake bite in the course of his employment, he is entitled to reimbursement of at least the medical expenses. 2. A statement has been filed by the 3rd respondent. According to the 3rd respondent, the Government can pay compensation in such circumstances only under Rule 3(a)(4) of the Kerala Rules for Payment of Compensation to Victims of Attack by Wild Animals, 1980, as per which, the maximum compensation payable is Rs. 5000/-, which has been sanctioned to the petitioner. According to the 3rd respondent, as per law, no other amounts can be paid to the petitioner. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. No doubt, the petitioner deserves sympathy. But, in the name of sympathy, I cannot direct the respondents to do an illegal act when the Rules do not permit payment of compensation in excess of Rs. 5000/-. I cannot, under law, direct the Government to pay the amount W.P(C) No. 1916 of 2011 -: 2 :- in excess of Rs. 5000/-. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.