AB AHAD DARZI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner or his counsel is not appearing in the case after July 1989. The petition has been fifed as far back as in January 1982. No substantial proceedings have been taken in the matter. Respondents have not also appeared it appears that the petitioner has lost interest in this case as is sufficiently displayed by his post litigative conduct, atleast after July 1989 of not following the case and failure to appear and prosecute the case. A Co -ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated: 26.12.96, has observed that the matter is of public interest, therefore, notwithstanding absence of parties matter will be heard.

(2.) A close examination of the matter reveals that the petitioner is seeking higher amount of compensation for his alleged dismissal from service or imprisonment in the wake of political events that took place on August 12,1953 leading to replacement of the then Government To atone the wrong done to the petitioner he has been paid compensation of Rs. 10,000/ -. He is seeking increase of this compensation amount He made a representation to the Government and the Secretary to Government Genera! Department vide letter No. GD(Adm) 38/76 -P.V,dated:12.9.1981 (annexure -A) informed him that the amount of compensation of Rs. 10,000/ -sanctroned byway of full and final settlement of his claim cannot be increased, in view of the consent and agreement of the petitioner to receive this amount as complete and total satisfaction of his claimed compensation. The personal affidavit of the petitioner thereto is placed on record with the Administrative Department On the basis of the consensus and agreement between the Govt. and the petitioner the case has not been reviewed and compensation not increased In the petition petitioner submits that as an amount of Rs. 25, 000/ - was paid as compensation to one Shri G. M. Shah, Retired Controller Supplies and Prices, therefore, he should be also paid this very amount. Without placing on record the document and material indicating identity and similarity of facts and circumstances between the two cases, mere contention of claiming higher compensation on this ground cannot get judicial approval. The circumstances and facts to show any arbitrariness, unfairness or irrationality in approach in awarding the compensation are wholly missing in this case Compensation at the relevant time was granted by the government to various alleged political sufferers in 1975 and soon thereafter change in Govt. and the then political environment It was granted pursuant to a policy decision of the then Cabinite, Committee/Group comprising of secretaries to Govt. general administration, Finance and Home Department was constituted in July 75 to examine the cases, grievances and representations of said sufferers removed from service in 1953 on political considerations This Group/Committee was to recommend and submit to cabinite proposal of each case for relief. The Committee examined the cases, including that of petitioner and came up with its recommendation and proposal as under: -

(3.) THE petitioners case was decided on the touch stone of this formula and in terms of above norms supplemented by the unconditional consent and unfettered agreement of the petitioner to receive the amount by way of whole final settlement of the compensation claim The cases of others removed from service in 1953 on political considerations have been dealt with and determined alike in terms of above norms It is not case of dealing with like circumstanced persons unequally or treating equally unequally circumstanced persons Thus viewed the action(s) taken by State and its officials In this case conform to set standard and norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant, in result the impugned order cannot be said to be violative of equality clause as contained in article 14 of the Constitution.