IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1308 of 2010 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15986 of 2005 ============================================= 1. Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna through Secretary Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna 2. The Financial Controller Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna 3. The General Manager cum Chief Engineer Koshi Area Electricity Board, Saharsa 4. The Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Katihar, Distt.- Katihar 5. The S.D.O., Electric Supply Division, Katihar, Distt.- Katihar .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Reshma Devi W/O Late Bino Yadav C/O Sunil Yadav, R/O Vill.- Chil-Mil, P.S. And Distt.- Begusarai .... .... Respondent/s ============================================= Appearance: For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dharmeshwar Mishra For the Respondent/s : None ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 05. 17.05.2011 The respondent has not entered appearance. This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 19th February 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 15986 of 2005. The appellant is the Bihar State Electricity Board the respondent in the writ petition. The respondent Reshma Devi Patna High Court LPA No.1308 of 2010 (5) dt.17-05-2011 2 (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) is the widow of one Bino Yadav. The said Bino Yadav was employed by the appellant Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) as a Lineman. While on duty he met with an accident and died on 4th August 1995. Since his death the writ petitioner lodged a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The said claim was allowed on 11th July 1998. The Board was directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 61,236/- within four weeks therefrom, failing which the Board was directed to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The said order was confirmed by the High Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 137 of 1999. Since the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the Board the petitioner lodged a claim for cash relief in the sum of Rs. two lakhs under the Bihar State Electricity Board Accident Compensation Scheme, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme”) issued under Board’s Resolution No. 244 dated 30th June 1988. As her application was not decided the writ petitioner filed above C.W.J.C. No. 15986 of 2005 under Article 226 of the Constitution. She claimed that under the Scheme she was entitled to a cash relief of Rs. two lakhs minus the amount of Patna High Court LPA No.1308 of 2010 (5) dt.17-05-2011 3 compensation received under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. She, therefore, demanded a sum of Rs. 1,38,764/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and the 50 % penalty. Pending the petition the Board paid cash relief of Rs. one lakh to the writ petitioner under the Scheme. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, directed the Board to pay additional sum of Rs. 38,764/- and interest at the rate of 12 per cent on the sum of Rs. 1,38,764/- from 4th August 1995 (the date of the death of the deceased employee) till the date of payment. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Dharmeshwar Mishra has appeared for the Board. He has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in construing the Scheme; in holding that the petitioner was entitled to a cash relief of Rs. two lakhs under the Scheme and that the Board was liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of cash relief payable under the Scheme. He has referred to the Scheme and the Board’s Circular dated 20th February 1997 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). Under the Scheme the employees of the Board are divided into two groups. Paragraph 3(a) of the Scheme refers to cash relief. Clause (i) thereof provides for the Patna High Court LPA No.1308 of 2010 (5) dt.17-05-2011 4 employees drawing basic pay upto Rs. 1600/- per month. Clause (ii) thereof provides for employees drawing basic pay exceeding Rs. 1600/- per month. In the submission of Mr. Mishra the deceased Bino Yadav was governed by Clause (i) as he was receiving basic pay of less than Rs. 1600 per month (pre-revised). Under the said Clause (i) the dependents of such employees who die in accident in discharge of duty are entitled to a cash relief of Rs. one lakh in addition to the amount of compensation payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. In the event, the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act exceeds Rs. two lakhs no further cash relief is payable under the said Clause (i). Clause (ii) of said paragraph 3(a) makes provision for the employees drawing basic pay exceeding Rs. 1600/- per month. In that case the cash relief allowed is Rs. two lakhs inclusive of the amount of compensation awarded under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. In the present case as the claim of the writ petitioner was governed by Clause (i) of paragraph 3(a), she was entitled to a cash relief of Rs. one lakh over and above the amount of compensation awarded to her under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Patna High Court LPA No.1308 of 2010 (5) dt.17-05-2011 5 The said amount of Rs. one lakh was paid to the writ petitioner pending the writ petition. The writ petitioner was, therefore, not entitled to any further sum under the Scheme. He has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the writ petitioner was entitled to a cash relief of Rs. two lakhs inclusive of the compensation received by her. Consequently the learned Single Judge has erred in directing the Board to pay an additional sum of Rs. 38,764/- to the writ petitioner. He has submitted that the Scheme was followed by the instruction dated 28th February 1997. Under the said instruction it is clarified that the claim for cash relief under the Scheme received after two months of the date of the accident shall not be entertained and the same be rejected. He has submitted that in the present case the writ petitioner made claim for cash relief under the Scheme on 21st February 2003 nearly 8 years after the date of the accident. The said claim was liable to be rejected. Nevertheless, on writ petitioner’s completing all formalities the Board did pay her cash relief of Rs. one lakh. He has further submitted that the Scheme does not envisage payment of interest or penalty. The learned Single Judge ought not to have awarded interest over the amount of cash relief payable under Patna High Court LPA No.1308 of 2010 (5) dt.17-05-2011 6 the Scheme. We have perused the Scheme and the general instructions dated 28th February 1997. The Scheme provides for cash relief as aforesaid. The basic pay of late Bino Yadav being less than Rs. 1600 (pre-revised), he was governed by Clause (i) of Paragraph 3(a) of the Scheme. The writ petitioner, therefore, was entitled to a cash relief of Rs. one lakh in addition to the compensation awarded to her under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. That having been paid the writ petitioner was not entitled to further amount. The learned Single Judge has, in our view, failed to appreciate that the basic pay of late Bino Yadav was less than Rs. 1600 (pre-revised) and thus erred in holding that the writ petitioner was entitled to a cash relief of Rs. two lakhs including the amount of compensation awarded to her as envisaged by Clause (ii) of Paragraph 3(a) of the Scheme. Further, learned Single Judge has also failed to consider the general instructions dated 28th February 1997 in its true perspective. Under the said instructions issued by the Board the General Managers and General Manager- cum-Chief Engineers of the Board were informed that late payment of compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 involved payment of interest Patna High Court LPA No.1308 of 2010 (5) dt.17-05-2011 7 at the rate of 12 per cent and 50 per cent as penalty. It was, therefore, impressed upon the concerned officers that they should finalize the claim expeditiously. Under the said instructions the Board has not committed to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum or 50 per cent penalty on the amount of cash relief payable under the Scheme. Moreover, the said instructions categorically stated, “However, it is also clarified that claims for compensation received from legal heirs of the deceased after two months of the date of accident shall not be entertained by the field officer and the same will be rejected.” In our view, the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the Board was committed to pay interest for late payment of cash relief. The Scheme does not envisage payment of interest over the amount of cash relief. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, erred in directing the Board to pay interest over the amount of cash relief at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. The writ petitioner having made belated claim on 21st February 2003, the Board ought not to have been directed to pay interest over the amount of cash relief paid to the writ petitioner under the Scheme. Patna High Court LPA No.1308 of 2010 (5) dt.17-05-2011 8 For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. The impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. C.W.J.C. No. 15986 of 2005 is rejected as the cause of action does not survive. Nothing stated in this order shall affect the Board’s liability to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum over the amount of compensation awarded under the workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited in the Registry under order dated 26th August 2010 shall be refunded to the appellant Bihar State Electricity Board. S.Sb/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)