- (1.) Petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay the compensation of Rs. 10 lacs instead of Rs. 2.50 lacs with statutory interest as per the Resolution of the Govt. dated 21.3.2001. It has further been submitted on behalf of petitioner that father of the petitioner was working as a chowkidar in Bhandra Police Station of Lohardaga vide Police order No. 829199 and was died during service period by the extremist on 26.1.2001. It has further been submitted that she had filed representations for release of compensation before the higher authority. Thereafter, an amount of Rs. 2.50 lacs was released whereas she was entitled for the actual amount of Rs. 10 lacs as per the Resolution of the Govt. dated 21.3.2001.
(2.) It has further been submitted on behalf of petitioner that along with father of the petitioner one Razid Ansari has also died in the extremist attack on 26.1.2001 and wife of said deceased had also filed a writ petition vide W.P.(S) No. 626 of 2003 wherein after considering the said Resolution dated 21.3.2011 the order has been passed allowing the writ petition. Some paragraphs of the said writ petition is being quoted hereinbelow: "21. ...I find that the grant of compensation to the petitioner was approved on 22.1.2001 and the final communication was sent to Accountant General on 13.2.2002. It is thus clear that on 21.3.2001 when the new policy came into force, the case of the petitioner was not closed. 22. On consideration of the materials on record which clearly indicate that the day on which the Resolution dated 21.3.2001 came into force, the case for grant of compensation to the petitioner was not closed and therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of benefits as contained in Resolution dated 21.3.2001. 23. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to extend all the benefits under Resolution dated 21.3.2001 to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of the order. 26. It is the duty of the-Court to protect the right of citizens and ensure that every one is able to live with dignity. Denial of benefit to the petitioner under Resolution dated 21.3.2001 is in contravention of the protection under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid facts, it would be appropriate to saddle the State of Jharkhand with cost of Rs. 50,000/- which would be paid to the petitioner. In view of the award of cost, no separate order for interest on the balance amount from Rs. 10 lacs is being made by this Court."
(3.) It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that against the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 626 of 2003 an L.P.A. has been preferred being L.P.A. No. 258 of 2013 which has also been dismissed. As such, the submission has been made that instant writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 626 of 2003.;