IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.9066 OF 2009 GURBAKSH SINGH SALUJA, SON OF LATE MAHER SINGH, RESIDENT OF MACHUATOLI, BARI PATH, POLICE STATION PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT PATN VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, HOME (SPECIAL) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HOME (SPECIAL) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA 5. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, DISASTER MANAGEMENT SECTION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ******** 4 08/12/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar. The petitioner has filed this writ application for payment of ex-gratia amount to which he is entitled under the rehabilitation package relating to 1984 Riots. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was entitled to receipt Rs. 50,000/- as compensation since he was affected in the 1984 Riots. At the relevant time, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 8,000/- as interim compensation. Later, the Union Government came out with a scheme which is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application. The scheme is dated 16th January, 2006. By virtue of the aforesaid scheme, the ex-gratia amount payable to persons affected in the 1984 Riots was increased to ten folds. Accordingly, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 72,000/- by the State Government treating Rs. 8,000/- as the amount which was payable to 2 him. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of payment by the State Authorities as contained in Annexure B series, has moved this Court for grant of ex- gratia payment/compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, according to which, they have claimed that the petitioner would be entitled to only ten times of the sum of Rs. 8,000/- which was paid to him. The State bases its claim on the basis of sub-clause (iv), (v) and (vi) of Annexure-2, which reads as follows:- (iv) ; (v) ; (vi) ; On interpretation of the aforesaid clauses, it is 3 clear that the Union Government has specifically stated that the victims would be entitled to receive ten times of the compensation amount fixed by the State Government. The only condition imposed by the Union Government is that the interim payment granted to such riot victims would be deducted from the total payment. It has also been specified that those who had not receive any interim compensation would not be entitled to payment of any relief. This Court finds that there is no difficulty in interpreting these clauses in favour of the petitioner and the interpretation of the State Government is obviously absurd when they treated the compensation amount to be Rs. 8,000/- and have paid the petitioner ten times the sum of Rs. 8,000/-. Counsel for the State in order to justify the order of the District Magistrate/Commissioner etc. in making payment of Rs. 80,000/- to the petitioner relies on Annexure-C which is annexed to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4. Annexure-C is a letter addressed by the Home Department, State of Bihar to the Director, Home Department, Government of India, New Delhi in which a direct query has been made as to whether those persons who were not paid the entire compensation amount 4 would be entitled to receive ten times the entire compensation amount or ten times the interim relief paid to them. Annexure-D is the reply of the Union Government which specifically states that the package includes ten times of the compensation amount and that only those persons who were not paid any compensation initially would be deprived of payment of any compensation. Thus, it is apparently clear that there is no doubt about the fact that the amount to be paid to the riot victims of 1984 is ten times of the compensation amount fixed by the State Government and not ten times of the interim relief made to such victims. The second issue raised on behalf of the petitioner is based on Clause 1 (xii) of the Scheme floated by the Central Government, which reads as follows:- (xii) , , , Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is also entitled to payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- lakhs as he had been displaced and had to leave Patna and go to Punjab because of the intensity of the riots of 1984. 5 This aspect of the matter apparently has never been raised by the petitioner. It is also not clear from the pleadings in the writ application as to when the petitioner left the State of Bihar and when he returned back to the State of Bihar. It appears that he has not raised this claim at any stage before. Considering all the aforesaid facts, this Court cannot pass any order in favour of the petitioner as far as the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- is concerned. However, the petitioner would have the liberty to raise this issue before the District Magistrate, Patna who will disposed of the application of the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of filing an application along with a copy of this order. It is further directed that the petitioner may produce a copy of this order before the District Magistrate, Patna and the District Magistrate, Patna should pay a sum of Rs. 4,20,000/- to the petitioner to which the petitioner is entitled within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the result, this writ application is allowed to the extent indicate aforesaid. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)