IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 31689 of 2006(V) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.J. JOSEPH, PURAPPUZHA THAYYIL, PONKUNNAM P.O., NOW WORKING AS FORESTER, PLACHERY FOREST STATION, ERUMELI RANGE, KOTTAYAM DIVISION. BY ADV. MR.N.K.KARNIS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. FORST CONSERVATOR, HIGH RANGE CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM. 4. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 5. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, THRISSUR. R5 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.31689/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DT. 4.12.02. P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMTITED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT. 5.6.03. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMTITED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 19.9.03. P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMTITED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPE DT. 16.1.04. P5:- COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.41.92 F &WLD DT. 8.10.92 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 29.1.04. P7:- COPY OF THE GO(P) NO.174/03 (132) FIN DT. 20.3.03. P8:- COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE IVTH RESPONDENT BEARING NO.E1-527/03 DT. 14.3.05. P9:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENTBEARING NO.E2-6293/03 DT. 16.6.03. P10:- COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.E4-13342/05 DT. 6.8.05. P11:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT GO(RT) NO.47/05 DT. 27.1.05. P12:- COPY OF THE GO(P) 145/2006 FIN DT. 25.3.06 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P13:- COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION ISSUED FROM ARAVIND HOSPITAL, MADURA TO THE PETITIONER DT. 15.11.08. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.31689/2006-V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is employed as a Forester in the Forest Department. He was working as Forest Guard in Erumeli Range. He was attacked by some forest brigands causing him serious injuries. 2. The petitioner along with Forester Sadanandan, Guards Joy Thomas and C.K.Mohanan while conducting beat on Rettamala side, at 2 a.m on 03/12/2002, was attacked with a gun and kathal. He was taken to the Medical Trust Hospital, Mundakkayam and, thereafter, shifted to Medical College, Kottayam and treated there as inpatient for 14 days. He lost his left eye sight and lost functioning of three fingers of the left hand. He continued physiotherapy treatment in Kottayam Medical College for seven months and thereafter went to Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai for treatment of eye. 3. The petitioner has produced Ext.P1 which is a news report published in Malayala Manorama Daily dated 04/12/2002, about the incident along with his photograph. 4. For extending financial benefits, he filed Ext.P2 representation before the Divisional Forest Officer, Kottayam. The details of medical W.P.(C) No.31689/2006 -:2:- expenditure which have been met by him have been given there. This is further followed by Exts.P3 and P4 representations. He had claimed the benefit of Group Insurance, due to him, also. 5. Even though the Government has framed a scheme as per Ext.P5, for providing Group Insurance for the Officers and Staffs of the Forest Department against accidents, it appears that during the relevant period for want of payment of premium by the department, the said benefit could not be availed of by the petitioner. As per the scheme, persons like the petitioner are entitled for a coverage upto Rs.1,00,000/-. Meanwhile, an amount of Rs.15,000/- was ordered as ex-gratia payment as per Ext.P6. He did not collect the amounts since by that time, he had spent more than Rs.1.5 lakhs for his treatment. Apart from that, going by Ext.P7 government order dated 20/03/2003, if he accepts the said payment, he will not be entitled for any other benefits. Even though the petitioner was pursuing his applications with the Government, nothing succeeded. Finally, by Ext.P8, the Divisional Forest Officer recommended sanction of Rs.72,000/- to him. The Conservator of Forests by Ext.P9 recommended action in his favour. Ext.P10 shows that the Additional Principal Chief Forest Conservator as early as on 06/08/2005 submitted a detailed report before the Government through the Secretary Forest and Wild Life W.P.(C) No.31689/2006 -:3:- Department seeking for sanction of the said amount. The petitioner has produced Ext.P11 whereby the dependents of another forest guard one Sri.P.S.Raju who sustained injuries while on duty were granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- as ex-gratia payment. Ext.P12 is the pay revision order dated 25/03/2006. Under paragraph (35) of the said order special allowance to all physically handicapped employees including part-time employees whose permanent/partial disability is not less than 40% is enhanced from Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- per month. It is the complaint of the petitioner that the same is also not being released to the petitioner. 6. The Government has not filed any counter affidavit here. The fifth respondent, Insurance Company in its counter affidavit, has explained that the cheque dated 23/10/2002, returned dishonoured when presented for payment. Accordingly, the policy was cancelled. A fresh policy was issued for covering the period 15/02/2003 to 14/02/2004, on payment of premium. As on the date of incident there was no coverage. Still in the light of Exts.P8 to P10 recommendations of the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Conservator and Chief Conservator of Forests, it can be clearly seen that the petitioner had sustained loss of left eye which resulted in disability to the tune of 40% and another 22% for the disability caused to his right hand. In Ext.P9, the details of treatment undertaken by him have been stated. It is W.P.(C) No.31689/2006 -:4:- pointed out that he had been attending treatment through Departments of Ophthalmology, Plastic Surgery, Physiotherapy, Neuro Surgery and, later he attended Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai for treatment of his affected eye. He had been subjected to operations also. He had also undertaken treatment in the Mata Hospital, Kottayam and Kottayam Medical College for getting extra treatment for the injuries and consequent disability sustained to the fingers of the left hand. 7. Regarding the grant of insurance claim, it is clear from Exts.P8 and P9, that the insurance company could not grant the same for want of remittance of premium by the Department. Even though the cheque for the premium was forwarded to the Company in view of the ban imposed by the Government for payment through treasury, the insurance policy was not renewed and therefore, the Insurance Company could not pay any amount. Going by Ext.P5 scheme the insured amount is Rs.1,00,000/- for a Forest Guard, if the disability is 100%. The percentage of disability shown therein also is a pointer to consider the claim of the petitioner. 8. In Exts.P8 to P10, it has been clearly pointed out that the going by the insurance scheme he is entitled for an amount of Rs.72,000/- as he has sustained loss of left eye which accrued disability of 40% and another 22% for the permanent partial disablement for loss of limb as certified by W.P.(C) No.31689/2006 -:5:- the Doctors. All the above details have been forwarded by the Forest Department to the Government. 9. This is a case where a person who had been working as a Forest Guard while on beat duty during night was attacked. They were trying to prevent extraction of rose wood at the relevant time. They were protecting properties belonging to the Government. Therefore, the situation pointed out by the petitioner is clearly very pathetic. He had to spend lot of amounts for treatment including expert treatment in various hospitals. He has undergone physiotherapy treatment also. He has sustained 40% disability to his eye and 22% permanent partial disablement for loss of limb. The insurance coverage could not be obtained by the petitioner purely because of the fact that the amount of premium forwarded by cheque could not be encashed by the Insurance Company in view of the treasury ban. This was purely due to the fault of the respondents. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any fault on the part of the petitioner. He is entitled for coverage of Rs.1,00,000/- going by Ext.P5 scheme itself. The same could therefore be taken as a criteria to arrive at the benefits due to the petitioner. The loss sustained by the petitioner has to be adequately compensated. The amount claimed is only reasonable. The petitioner is now remaining in a state suffering acute disabilities. Due compensation ought to have been granted W.P.(C) No.31689/2006 -:6:- as a timely help. But that was not sanctioned, inspite of recommendations made as per Exts.P8 to P10. Hence, this Court will be justified in granting reliefs, in these proceedings, especially since none of the relevant facts have been disputed. In the light of Exts.P8 and P9 there will be a direction to the Government to sanction payment of Rs.72,000/- to the petitioner and disburse the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Regarding the claim for balance amount out of the total amount claimed to the tune of Rs.1.5 lakhs, the matter will be considered by the Government in accordance with law. The petitioner will also be extended the benefit of Ext.P12 pay revision order, regarding grant of Special Allowance. Arrears on that count will also be disbursed expeditiously. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms