ANANDA SEN,J. - (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to pay the amount of compensation in accordance with the ratio, as per which, the other similarly situated persons like Shri T. Kujur and Sri Supriyan Soren, have also been paid and declared disabled.
(2.) The petitioner joined the services of the Boarder Security Force and while he was posted in Srinagar, during counter attacking of the extremist in Kashmir Valley, he sustained Bomb blast injury on 4.4.1995. The petitioner was treated but he became physically handicapped and his disability was to the tune of 60%. Annexure-4 is the Disability Certificate, showing the disability of the petitioner as 60% and he has been declared as permanent physically impairment in relation to his both right upper and lower limb face. The respondent- BSF has paid a sum of Rs. 4,34,510/- as a lump sum compensation in view of the fact that the petitioner has sustained injury and has been declared 60% disable. The petitioner received the said amount under protest and made a representation before the authority that the amount is not adequate and he is entitled to a much higher amount. He submitted that other persons who had sustained less injury than that of the petitioner have been paid a sum of Rs. 11 Lakhs. The petitioner cited the case of Supriyan Soreng and T. Kujur, who were paid a sum of Rs. 11 Lakhs on account of sustaining 60-65% disability. Thus the petitioner claims that he is entitled to get the amount of Rs. 11 lakhs as compensation.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Inspector General (Training Centre and School) BSF. In the said counter affidavit, it has not been denied that the petitioner has sustained injury in the blast and has been declared 60% disable. In the counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that as per the Government of India, Personnel Grievances and Pension Letter No. 45/1/2004-P and PW(I) of 27th January, 2005, while calculating the compensation after 1st of April, 2004, the dearness pay has to be included with basic pay. It has further been mentioned that the constable T. Kujur was declared to be 100% disable and constable Suprian Soreng was only 50% disabled but those two constables were medically examined on 24.11.2004 and 19.2.2004, whereas, the petitioner was medically examined on 1.12.2003. It has been stated that while calculating the compensation of constable T. Kujur, dearness pay was included in terms of the said circular. It has further been mentioned that constable Suprian Soreng was paid only Rs. 3,61,788.00 as compensation and not Rs. 11 lakhs, as claimed by the petitioner.;