Bireshwar Bera @APPELLANT@Hash Union of India and Others

Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.

The petitioner states that his brother late Bangeswar Bera was an employee under the establishment of the respondent. He was a registered signal

man. He was posted in the ship M.V. Ratna Chandra Lekha. He died on board the ship on February 6, 1966 at Port Arther in the United States. His

registration was cancelled on July 5, 1966 after recording the cause of death as not known.

The father of the petitioner made an application for a suitable job for the petitioner and to release compensation and admissible death and other

benefits. On September 27, 1993 the respondent no. 3 intimated the petitioner that the seaman, i.e., the brother of the petitioner had committed suicide

and, therefore, the question of compensation did not arise. The respondent no. 4 subsequently asked for certain documents from the petitioner. The

petitioner mentions that the office of the respondent no. 2 had verbally assured him that the case of his son might be considered. To a lawyer’s

notice issued to the respondents, the respondent no. 2 replied that the petitioner might approach the shipping company for admissible death benefits,

but the question of providing a job did not arise.

The first petition filed by the petitioner for life compensation and a job was dismissed by this Court. But the petitioner now was praying for the death

benefits and other benefits as per the letter, dated March 9, 2010. The matter went up to the Supreme Court and the petitioner lost. He, thereafter,

filed a second writ petition which he decided not to proceed with. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent authorities did not consider the

representation of the petitioner dated May 13, 2013 which was only for death benefits to which the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled.

By this petition the petitioner has inter alia prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay all the admissible death

and other benefits as per the rules towards the death of the deceased seaman, a direction upon the respondents to show-cause why the representation

of the petitioner, dated May 13, 2013, for the death and other benefits should not be considered and for other reliefs. On behalf of the respondents nos.

1 to 4 a report has been filed in the form of an affidavit wherein it has been stated that the brother of the writ petitioner died on March 6, 1966 at Port

Arther, United States on board M.V. Ratna Chandra Lekha which was owned by Ratnakar Shipping Company Limited which has now been merged

with Indian Steamship Company Limited under Indian Merchant Navy.

On March 9, 2010, the Director-in-Charge, Ministry of Shipping Road Transport and Highways, wrote a letter to the lawyer of the petitioner informing

him that the late seaman died 43 years before. His registration number was required by the office which was not mentioned in the concerned letter

under reply. The office did not deal with any kind of payment of seamen and, therefore, the concerned shipping company might be approached for

admissible death benefit. Since he was an Indian Merchant Navy seaman, the question of getting job of the petitioner in the office of the respondents

did not arise as that was a purely central government office.

The petitioner moved a writ petition in the year 2001 wherein he inter alia prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents

to pay all life compensation and to release admissible death benefits and other benefits as per the Rules towards the death of late Bangeswar Bera,

the brother of the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay. It was observed in the order that the claim for compassionate

appointment and other reliefs were refused in the year 1992-93 and the petitioner moved this petition in the year 2001.

Subsequently, the petitioner moved a fresh writ petition with the identical prayers. That writ petition was dismissed by this Court on the ground that it

was not maintainable and the same was an abuse of the due process of the Court. The respondents have further stated that after lapse of 51 years the

prayer for financial benefits have no legs to stand on. That apart the prayers made by the petitioner have already been declined by this Court. The writ

petition is plainly a misconceived one. The petitioner had earlier filed two writ petitions which have been dismissed. His prayer for grant of death

benefits was also a prayer in WP No. 8823 (W) of 2010. There also the petitioner has inter alia prayed for a direction to all the life compensation and

to release admissible death benefits. That claim had already been turned down by this Court. The petitioner cannot also over again ask for a direction

upon the respondents to consider his representation, dated May 13, 2013 praying for death benefits with interest in terms of the letter written by the

responden ts on March 9, 2010. While dismissing the earlier writ petition, this Court had observed that the said letter was written to give the

petitioner’s lawyer certain information and nothing was decided by that. Moreover, the petitioner cannot go on making the same prayer in various

writ petition over and over again.

Mr. Moitra, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that he was giving up all the prayers made in the writ petition, but he merely

wanted a declaration that the State as the supreme sovereign authority has an obligation to inform the petitioner about the cause of death. According

to him, this is a case where no postmortem had been done and no specific cause of death had been intimated to the petitioner.

More than half a century after the death of the brother of the petitioner it is difficult to ascertain whether or how the State had informed anything to

the family of the deceased. Moreover, the brother of the petitioner was in a private shipping company. As such the primary responsibility was of the

concerned shipping company to inform the news of death to the family of the deceased seaman. Whether the private company had informed the

Government of India about the death of the brother of the petitioner also cannot be ascertained after the lapse of such a long period. Moreover, the

company with which the erstwhile shipping company has been merged has not been made a party. Therefore, their response has also not available in

the present case.

Mr. Moitra’s argument was based on the human rights of a citizen and the obligation of the State in terms of such rights. Mr. Maity, the learned

Advocate for the respondents nos. 1 to 4, never questioned the ultimate obligation of the State to protect the life and liberty of its citizens. State

certainly does owe a responsibility for bringing information or find the dead body of a citizen dying in a foreign country. But that could be done if the

petitioner had come up with such a prayer within a period proximate to the death of his brother.

I quite agree with Mr. Maity that now it is not possible for the Union of India to know how the brother of the petitioner had died in such a distant past.

The reliefs prayed for in the petition cannot be granted for the reasons mentioned above. That apart, when Mr. Moitra has given a total go by to the

same nothing remains in the writ petition. If the petitioner seriously wanted to seek a declaration about the obligation of the State the writ petition

should have been prepared differently.

There is no pleading in the writ petition about the claim made by Mr. Moitra and it was entirely a different case made out by him at the stage of

argument. The submission of Mr. Moitra has no foundation in the writ petition. To accept such a plea and to give a declaration without any pleading

will be undertaking an exercise in vacuum, although the obligation of the State to protect the human dignity and right of its citizen has not been

theoretically questioned by the respondents. With the observations as above the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all requisite formalities.