IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10345 of 2006 TABASSUM WIFE OF LATE MD. KASIM KHAN RESIDNET OF JAI PRAKASH NAGAR, NALA ROAD, P.S. KHAGARIA, DISTT. KHAGARIA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (ADMINISTRATION), BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE INSPECTGOR GENERAL (WELFARE), BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL (HEADQUARTER), BIHAR, PATNA. 7. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, BHAGALPUR ZONE, BHAGALPUR. 8. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, MUNGER ZONE, MUNGER. 9. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KHAGARIA. ----------- 3 24/11/2010 Husband of the petitioner died in a road accident while on duty. He was supposed to be driving a jeep of police patrolling party and during Bihar Band his jeep dashed with a truck in which he died. It is his death which compelled the petitioner, who happened to be his wife, to approach the respondents authorities for grant of ex-gratia payment in terms of the circular contained in annexure-8. Stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that recommendation had been made by the - 2 - Superintendent of Police, Khagaria to the high-ups but the respondents initially applied dilly dally tactics on the issue and has further rejected her claim now which would be evident from the decision brought on record in the counter affidavit. Stand of the petitioner is that annexure-8 ought to be given a widest interpretation to extend benefit of the kind to the petitioner’s husband or after all he has lost his life while performing his duty assigned to him. Further a case of discrimination has also been pleaded and some example has been given in annexure-6. Stand of the State is that the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ application is misplaced. Various circulars including annexure-8 have to be read in the context in which they had come to be issued. It is primarily directed against the victims of mob violence and the extremists’ violence. It is not meant for such cases where death occurs during the course of employment but in the circumstance in which those Circulars talk about. Death of the husband of the petitioner was a mere accident and not a case of extremists’ violence or mob violence which was - 3 - committed against him. Reasonings given by the State seems to be correct because interpretation on a bare reading of the Circulars including annexure-8 would show that this was issued in special circumstance for special occasions where death has been caused by extremists violence or mob violence. Case of the petitioner’s husband does not fall in that category. Respondents are correct in rejecting her claim. So far as discrimination point is concerned, names of some of the Officers who had been given the benefit speak for themselves under the circumstances in which they met un-timely death. Case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the case of those police officers. No case for a direction for payment of ex-gratia amount is made out. If the petitioner is entitled for any other benefit in terms of any other circular which has not been given, the same may be pursued by the petitioner. So far as the present claim is concerned, no interference is required by this Court. This writ application is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) - 4 -