- (1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the office order dated 10th September, 2008 (Annexure7) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner's claim in view of the decision of the Government dated 6th February, 2006, regarding rehabilitation package, has been rejected.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he had made claim of compensation in the year 1984 and an amount of Rs.10,000/ as compensation was recommended by the concerned authority, but the said amount was not paid to the petitioner. ACCORDING to the policy decision, the benefit of rehabilitation package is to be given to the victims, who were already got some compensation earlier. It has been submitted that though the payment of compensation was not made to the petitioner earlier, recommendation was made in his favour and that should be treated as payment of compensation made to the petitioner. Learned Deputy Commissioner without taking into consideration the said fact has arbitrarily rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that no compensation amount was paid to the petitioner earlier and as such, he is not entitled to get the benefit of rehabilitation package. Since the petitioner's claim of compensation was entertained and recommendation was made to pay Rs.10,000/ as compensation, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of rehabilitation package announced by the Government. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. On behalf of Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 7, it has been stated, inter alia, that the petitioner was never paid any amount of compensation earlier and as such he is not entitled to get the rehabilitation package, which is to be given to the victims, who have already got some amount of compensation in that connection. The petitioner had also made claim before the respondents and the same was considered, but was not found proper and his claim was rejected. The petitioner, thereafter, had preferred writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.5981 of 2006 for the same relief. By order dated 15th May, 2008, the said writ petition was disposed of, observing that the State of Jharkhand may proceed with the rehabilitation package dated 16th January, 2006. The petitioner's claim was examined in the light of the policy decision and it was found that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of rehabilitation package. By the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner has rejected the petitioner's claim by speaking reason, clearly holding that the petitioner had not received any amount of compensation earlier and as such he is not entitled for the benefit of rehabilitation package. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. It is not disputed that the benefit as per the policy of the rehabilitation package is to be given to the victim, who had already got some compensation earlier. Admittedly, the petitioner had not received any amount of compensation earlier. The respondents have clearly denied the petitioner's claim and asserted that the claim of compensation was not found genuine and it was rejected. Even if it is accepted that there was recommendation of some official, as claimed by the petitioner, the same does not amount to payment or receipt of compensation amount, which is a condition precedent for giving the benefit of rehabilitation package.
(3.) THE impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner is well considered and supported by reason. I find no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned order, warranting interference with the same. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.;