IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 7279 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 14th December, 2010. Smt. Krishna Devi Petitioner through Mr. Surinder Deswal, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. K.D.S.Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks a Mandamus to direct the State of Punjab and its authorities to grant her compensatory financial assistance due to the untimely death of her husband while in judicial custody. The undisputed facts are that the husband of the petitioner–Manohar Lal was arrested in a case FIR No. 30 dated 8.3.2006, under Sections 409/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station, Gidderbaha, District Muktsar and while in judicial custody, he unfortunately passed away on 21.06.2006. The correct age of the deceased though is not known, but it appears that he was in the age group of 55-60 years. The age of the petitioner appears to be 44 years at the time of issuance of the BPL ration card to them and as such she should be now in the age group of 50-55 years. The petitioner and her deceased husband belong to the poor strata of society living below the poverty line. It is averred that the deceased was the sole bread earner who used to earn his livelihood by selling eatables on bicycle. The deceased has left behind two sons and one unmarried daughter. The BPL ration card also confirms that the deceased and his family were in the state of penury. The pathetic financial condition of the family prompted the Deputy Commissioner, Moga, also to recommend vide his letter dated 17.10.2006 [Annexure P-4] the grant of assistance of `2.5 lacs to the petitioner and her family members. The petitioner awaited for the assistance for a long period but finding no response to the Deputy Commissioner's recommendations that she has approached this Court. The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit. The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Muktsar has candidly admitted that the husband of the petitioner died while he was in judicial custody as an under-trial. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. The medical record or the other circumstances no where suggest that the deceased was suffering from any serious ailment which could be the cause of his instant death despite normal medical care. There is not even an averment in their reply by the Jail Authorities that the deceased was rushed to the hospital and provided timely medical aid. A hale and hearty person having no ailment history and who earns his livelihood by selling eatables on a bicycle, would not have met with a sudden death but for the lack of timely medical assistance. It would thus be totally justified to draw an inference that the State apparatus failed to perform its duties with due diligence, entitling the petitioner to seek compensation in accordance with law. It is not disputed that the family of the deceased lives below poverty line and the petitioner and her unmarried daughter have no regular source of livelihood. The responsibility to marry and settle her unmarried daughter also lies solely on the shoulders of the petitioner. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the Deputy Commissioner, Moga had recommended the financial assistance of `2.5 lacs, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents are directed to compensate the petitioner and release the financial assistance of `2.5 lacs in favour of the petitioner. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum. Disposed of. Dasti. December 14, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE