IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16475 of 2009 1. MOSTT. PUNAM DEVI W/O LATE SURESH PRASAD SAH VILL+P.O. RAGHOPUR, P.S. PARBATTA, DISTT. BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BHAGALPUR 3. THE D.G.-CUM-I.G. OF POLICE BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BHAGALPUR 5. THE COMMANDANT NAUGACHHIA, BHAGALPUR ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Durgesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. S. No. Sah, Adv. ----------------- 2. 13.1.2010 A supplementary affidavit has been filed to implead the Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Branch Manager, Bhagalpur Branch. Copy of the application has been served on Shree Rajiv Ranjan Prasad, Advocate, who normally appears on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation of India in matters before this Court and his junior Shree Amod Kumar, Advocate, is present. Let the Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Branch Manager at Bhagalpur Branch be added as party respondent no. 6, during the course of the day. The husband of the petitioner is alleged to have been deputed on election duty during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd phase. In course of his commuting between the location of the 1st and 2nd phase for duty at another place, he is stated to have met with a train accident and died. The petitioner is his widow claiming compensation. This Court does not find it difficult to understand her limitation in making the necessary 2 pleadings with regard to her claim for ex gratia compensation from the Government, the nature of the Insurance cover taken for those deputed on election duty in 2009, the liability of the insurance company etc. However, at Annexure-7 is a recommendation dated 9.5.2009 suggestive that he died in the course of transportation while on election duty and her request has been recommended and forwarded for ex- gratia payment to respondent no. 3, i.e. the Director General cum- I.G. of Police. If this Court were to require the petitioner to file full pleadings and call upon the respondents State and the Life Insurance Corporation of India to file a counter affidavit, it does not appear that the writ petition can be disposed expeditiously as this Court is still hearing writ applications of the year 2003/2004 at the admission stage. The respondents State, in the nature of the matter, should have either accepted the recommendation dated 9.5.2009 by now or rejected it by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The issue with regard to an accidental death during election and grant of compensation thereunder, the limitations under any Insurance Policy taken by the State Government for those deputed on election duty, are matter elaborately dealt with and more than well considered by this Court in a judgment reported in 2002(2) BLJR 1522. This Court is satisfied that the respondents are only required to consider 3 the claim of the petitioner in light thereof and any other circulars of the State Government that may be available in this regard. Learned counsel for the newly added respondent no. 6, therefore, very fairly stated that no sooner that he receives a notice from respondent no. 3 to appear before him, the Corporation shall fully cooperate for an early disposal of the matter in accordance with law. Let respondent nos. 3 and 6 jointly consider the claim of the petitioner expeditiously and dispose off the same by a reasoned and speaking order, within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is expected that if the respondents find justification in the claim, or part of the claim necessary consequential action shall also be ordered within the same period. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)