Citation : 2002 Local Law (CG) 29
The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed the state to pay enhanced compensation to two families whose relatives were killed in the anti-Sikh violence of 1984. Delivering the order, Justice Fakhruddin allowed the writ petition in part and said the victims’ families should receive ₹2,00,000 for each death, with interest from the date of the incident after adjusting sums already paid.
The petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, concerned the deaths of Harmit Singh, about 25 years old, and Santosh Singh, about 58, both residents of Dongargarh. The record shows the families had previously received immediate relief and later payments totaling ₹1,00,000 for each death. The court took note of earlier decisions, including the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Bhajan Kaur and the Supreme Court direction in S.S. Ahluwalia, and found it just to extend that relief to these victims in Chhattisgarh.
The court’s order requires the State to pay the balance so that each family receives ₹2,00,000 from the date of the incident, with interest at the rate directed in the judgment, after adjusting amounts already disbursed. The award is to be paid within one month from the date a copy of the judgment is produced to the authority responsible for making payment.
Beyond monetary compensation, the High Court addressed other reliefs sought by the petitioners. It said petitioners remain entitled to make a fresh representation for compassionate appointment and related claims. Any such representation must be considered and a reasoned order passed by the competent authority within three months of receipt.
The court also directed the State to file a report within three months with the Registrar General detailing whether an FIR was registered after the deaths and whether any persons were prosecuted or brought to book in connection with the incident. The petition was partly allowed, with the court preserving the petitioners’ right to challenge any adverse administrative order.
This ruling brings the Chhattisgarh response into line with earlier directions that recognised the State’s duty under Article 21 to protect life and, where that duty failed during communal violence, to provide just compensation to victims’ families. The judgment clarifies both the monetary remedy and procedural steps the petitioners may pursue when seeking administrative relief such as compassionate appointments.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Alok Bakshi, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Sanjay K. Agrawal, Dy. Adv. General
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Constitution Of India – Article 14, Constitution Of India – Article 21, Constitution Of India – Article 226, Constitution Of India – Article 227
Cases Referred:
Smt. Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration, 1996 III AD (Delhi) 333; Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration, 1996 AIHC 5644; S.S. Ahluwalia v. Union of India and Ors., 2001(3) M.P.H.T. 1, AIR 2001 SC 1309
======
नागरिक मामला – मुआवजा – राशि का निर्धारण: याचिकाकर्ता दो मृत व्यक्तियों के विधिक उत्तराधिकारी हैं, जिनकी मृत्यु 1984 के विरोधी-सिख दंगों (Anti-Sikh Riots) में हुई थी। घटना के तुरंत बाद उन्हें तत्काल राहत के रूप में कुछ धनराशि दी गई थी। कुछ महीनों के पश्चात उन्हें अतिरिक्त मुआवजा राशि भी प्राप्त हुई। मुआवजे की राशि से असंतुष्ट होकर, याचिकाकर्ताओं ने वर्तमान याचिका दायर की।
न्यायालय ने यह पाया कि मृतक वास्तव में विरोधी-सिख दंगों में मारे गए थे और उनके आश्रितों को कुछ राशि पहले ही दी जा चुकी थी। दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा भजन कौर बनाम दिल्ली प्रशासन तथा सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा एस. एस. आहलूवालिया बनाम भारत संघ के मामलों में दिए गए निर्णयों को ध्यान में रखते हुए, न्यायालय ने यह माना कि प्रत्येक मृतक के परिजन को ₹2,00,000/- की राशि मुआवजे के रूप में दी जानी चाहिए।
यह राशि घटना की तिथि से देय होगी तथा इस पर 9% मासिक ब्याज दिया जाएगा, और जो राशि पहले से दी जा चुकी है, उसे समायोजित किया जाएगा। इस प्रकार, मुआवजे की राशि ₹50,000 से बढ़ाकर ₹2,00,000 कर दी गई। जहां तक अन्य राहतों का प्रश्न है, जैसे संवेदनशील नियुक्ति (compassionate appointment) अथवा अन्य दावे, याचिकाकर्ता संबंधित सक्षम प्राधिकारी के समक्ष नया प्रतिवेदन प्रस्तुत कर सकते हैं। सक्षम प्राधिकारी को यह निर्देश दिया गया कि ऐसा प्रतिवेदन प्राप्त होने पर तीन माह के भीतर युक्तियुक्त और कारण-सहित आदेश पारित किया जाए।
न्यायालय ने उपरोक्त निर्देशों के साथ याचिका आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार की।
