^ c ?'< Ott INTHE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER W.P.NO.'SI^I /2006 t :-^ Ramesh Kumar Tandon S/o late Kartik Ram Tandan, aged about 26 years, R/o village- Bhurld, Ppst and Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg[C.G.]. VERSUS RESPONDENTS :- ^(1) State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhavan, ,.^ Raipur [C.G.]. •!''.'vy' Y.^U'.-'' .^f2) Secretary, Scheduled Caste and l<3";G^.--''..-••" Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department of Chhattisgarh State, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur [C.G.]. ^^-•' ,-NA .&'- f>-^T>>- ^ ..•• <<^/ <^3) Collector, Durg, DistrictDurg[C.G.]. (4) Superintendent of Police, Durg, <" District Durg [C.G.]. -(5) Officer-In-Charge, Police Station- Bemetara, District Durg [C.G.]. PETITIOILUNDJIR^ARTICLE^26/227 QF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA "u<'*\ f.^ .^-. 'v^> //^^\ ;©- '9»-6~-:Si3\ S 3 ^swi-^'"'^ y, HIGH COURT OFCHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRWASTAVAriL PETITIONER W.P. No. 3751/2006 Ramesh Kum.ar Tandon RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia Appearance: Shri J.K. Shastri, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. Govt. Advocate with Shri S.K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORftL-ORDER (Passed on04.Gl.2011) Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: "7.1 That the Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to call all the concemed records for its kind perusal and enquired the matter by C.B.I, looking to the gravity of the incidence. 7.2. That the Hon'ble Court further be pleased to direct the respondents to provide Rs.25,00,000/- to the petitioner in all the counts of prior intiraation, not providing protection, in human treatment, torture, death of the m.em.bers, suffering injury etc. being a member of Schedule Castes community, as per provision. -2- >.!-„.,. •S' 7.3. That, this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to provide employinent to the petitioner, and to meet the daily expenses of the gun man provided by the State, to the petitioner. 7.4. That, the Hon'ble Court further be pleased to direct the respondent No.4 to arrest the accused Sukhdeo against whom. first information report was lodged and to take action on further report of threatening reported by the petitioner, immediately. 7.5. Any other relief, this Hon7ble Court deems fit and proper, be also granted to the petitioner." 3. Before I deal with the contentious issue, it is not in dispute that during the pendency of the petition, the police station registered offence and the challan was filed against the accused persons for alleged coinmission of murder of deceased Puneet Ram Tandon & Kartik Ram Tandaon. From the affidavit filed by the officer in- charge of the case, it is also revealed that the criminal case was pending before the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Durg. Now both the pdrties jointly submit thaf the trial is also over therefore, in so far as reliefs as claimed in para 7.1 & 7.4 are concerned, they do not survive for consideration. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner argued that as the deceased Puneet Ram Tandan 8s Kartik Ram Tandon belonged to the Scheduled Caste category, the petitioner,who is younger brother and other family members and dependents of the deceased are entitled to just and proper compensation and also Qther ^ -3- i^ ^ ^' rehabilitatery relief as provided under the Scheduled Castes SE Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1995"). * 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rule 12 (4) thereof obliges the competent authority to make arrangements for providing immediate relief in cash or in kind or both to the victims of the atrocity, there family members and dependents according to the scale as specified in the Schedule annexed to the Rules, being Annexure -I 8s II. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of Itenis 20 & 21 of Annexure -I, referable to Rule 12 (4) of the Rules of 1995, the family members and dependents of the family of the deceased F'uneet Ram Tandan & Kartik Ram Tandon, which includes petitioner as well, are entitled not only to the cornpensation, but also to other reliefs which are in addition to relief amounts payable under Item No.20, which include various benefits enumerated in clauses (i), (ii) & (ii) under column 3 of Annexure -I. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid provisions, respondents are under an obligation to provide employment to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is also entitled to Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation. 6. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the State-respondents submits that in so far as payment of compensation as provided under Item 20 of Annexure -I of the Rules of 1995 is concerned, -4- Smt. Kamla Bai 85 Smt. Veena Bai, respective widows of deceased have been paid Rs.1,50,000/- vide cheques bearing Nos.250866 & 250867 being 75 per cent of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- payable. He further submits that as during the pendency of the petition, the criminal case has been decided, in so far as balance amount of 25 per cent is concerned, the same would also be paid if found payable, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1995. 7. He further submits that in addition to the amount of compensation payable under the Rules, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has also been sanctioned from Swekcha Anudan Rashi and thereafter, fhe State Govt. has sanctioned the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- vide its memorandum dated 25.3.2006 and a cheque bearing No. 1555235 dated 3Qth May, 2006 for Rs. 1,00,000/- has been sent by the Chief Executive Officer which has been duly received and acknowledged by the petitioner on 20th June, 2006. Learned counsel for the State-respondents submits that the amount of corapensation is payable in accordance with the provisions of Rules of 1995 and therefore, the claim for compensation of 25,00,OOO/- is not maintainable under the law. 8. In so far as the claim of employment is concerned, learned State counsel subinitted that the said claim is not sustainable in the eye of law as the provision does not provide for such relief. f'f -5- c^( &. * 9. In so far as claim of compensation is concemed, the provision contained in Rule 12 (4) ofthe Rules of 1995 clearly provides that the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate shall make arrangements for providing immediate relief in cash or in kind or both to the victims of atrocity, their family members and dependents according to the scale as specified in the Schedule annexed to the Rules. Therefore, in order to find out as to what compensation is payable, provision contained in Annexure -I appended to the Rules are required to be looked into. Item No.20 of Annexure-I provides for immediate amount of relief in case of murder/deafh depending upon whether it is a case relating to non-earning member of a family or earning member of a family. Even if it is assumed that the deceased were eaming members of a family, at least an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is payable as compensation. It further provides that 75 per cent is liable to be paid after postmortem and 25 per cent on conviction by fhe lower Court. Thus, it is clear that in so far as payment of mandatory compensation as provided under Item 20 is concerned, 75 per cent has already been released to the respective widows of deceased- Puneet Ram Tandan 85 Kartik Ram Tandon. As the trial is stated to have been concluded during the pendency of the instant petition, the respondents shall pay balance arnount of 25 per cent, if not already paid, as expeditiously as possible, provided that fhe trial has ended in conviction. -6- ^ '^ ^'. •p< 10. The submission of learned counsel for fhe State-respondents that except payment of m.andatory compensation, the petitioner is not entitled to any other relief, cannot be accepted in the light of the rehabilitatery prevision contained in Item No. 21 of Annexure -I which clearly provides that in addition to relief amounts paid under Item No.20, reliefs may be arranged within three months of the date of atrocity as specified in clauses (i) (ii) 8s (iii). It is therefore, clear that the claim of the petitioner for grant of employment has not been considered in fhe light of the provision contained in Item No.21. 11. Accordingly, the District Magistrate is directed to consider the claim. of the petitioner for grant of employment in view of the provision contained in Item No.21 ofAnnexure-I referable to Rule 12 (4) of the Rules of 1995. Decision with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner to claim for employment shall be taken by the District Magistrate expeditiously, as soon as possible, within an outer limit of 4 months frora the date of receipt of copy of this order. 12. Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent and in the manner indicated above. 13. There shall be no orders as to costs. - Sd/- M.M. Shrivastava Judge Praveen.