Smt. Anar Devi vs The State of Bihar and Others

S.N. Mishra, J.—A counter affidavit is being filed behalf of the State Respondents. Let it kept on the record.

After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. In this writ application prayer of the Petitioner is set out in paragraph 1 which reads as follows:

That this writ petition is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents to pay Rs. 70000/- (seventy thousand) as recommended by the Committee appointed by the Vice-Chancellor, Patna University to be paid to the Petitioner on account of the fatal accident of the Petitioner''s husband and also revision of family pension of the Petitioner according to revised fate from 1.3.1989 with interest thereon.

The widow of the deceased employee has approached this Court for the reliefs sought for in this writ application, as quoted above. The Petitioner''s husband was an employee of the University whose Services had been transferred to the State Government at the request of the Superintending Engineer Flood Control Division, Buxar, as it appears from Annexure-A/1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University, which is being disputed by the learned Counsel for the State. The deceased employee met with an accident and died while dismantling the steel tripod used for the testing on the bed of the river Dhasmavation Kiilwar Embankment for construction of anti-flood sluice. The widow of the deceased has approached the Respondent authority for compensation. It appears that the leave encashment and other pensionary benefits has been paid to the deceased employee by the University. However, as regards the payment of death compensation, some dispute arose between the University and the State Respondents as to who will pay the death compensation, as sought for by the Petitioner. It appears that the University has paid Rs. 25000/- as death compensation to the Petitioner. The Respondent Registrar of the University has written a letter to the Chief Engineer, Flood Control, Patna, requesting him to consider the prayer of the Petitioner and pay the compensation as sought for by the widow of the deceased employee. From the material on record it does not appear that the Respondent Chief Engineer, Flood Control, Patna, has considered the case of the Petitioner in response to the request made by the University. Now the question arises as to who will pay the death compensation in terms of the prayer made by the Petitioner. Mrs. Seema Ali Khan learned Counsel for the University submits that on requisition received from the State Respondents the employee was sent to perform the work in question, and while he, was performing his work, he met fatal accident as a result he died. It is therefore, submitted that the State Respondent is liable to pay the death compensation of the deceased employee.

In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Respondents wherein, inter alia, it is stated that a sum of Rs. 1,12,660/- was paid to the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna, for the services rendered. It is further stated that no officer of the department was present at the time of accident as the said work Was being done by the agency, namely, Bihar College of Engineering. It is admitted that the work order was given by the Superintending Engineer, Flood Control Buxar, vide letter dated 7.6.87 to the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna, and the State Respondent has paid a sum of Rs. 1,12,660/- for the work performed by the agency. With reference fo the statement made in the counter affidavit, it is submitted that in the background of the case, the State Respondent is not liable to pay any compensation except what have been paid to the agency for the work done by its employee. As stated above, on the requisition having been received by the State Respondents the employee was sent to perform his duties and in course of performing his duties he met with an accident as a result he died. A committee has also been constituted by the University to enquire into as to who is liable to pay the compensation in the facts and circumstances of this case and the committee has come to the conclusion that it is the State Respondent who is liable to pay the compensation as sought for by the Petitioner.

After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings on the record, I am of the view that since the work was being performed at the request made by the State Respondents and while performing such job the employee met with an accident and ultimately he died, the State Respondents are liable to pay such compensation. Accordingly, I direct the State Respondents to pay the death compensation in terms of the prayer made by the Petitioner, as early as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.