2025:JHHC:28149 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5115 of 2014 --- Piyariya Devi widow of late Binder Paswan, Resident of Sachai, P.O. and P.S. Kurtha, District-Jahanabad (Bihar) ....... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. Divisional Forest Officer, Dhalbhum Division, Jamshedpur, P.O. Dhalbhumgarh, P.S.Patmada, District- East Singhbhum 4. Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur, P.O., P.S. Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum. 5. Accountant General, (A & E) Jharkhand, P.O., P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi ........Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr.S.C.-II Nirupama, A.C to Sr.S.C.-II -- 19/09.09.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Initially, the Petitioner has preferred this writ application for the following reliefs: For a direction upon the respondents to immediately sanctioned and pay wound and other extra ordinary pensions, Gratuity and other retirement benefits and compensation as per Government Order No. Miscellaneous Memo No. 25/07-5508 dated 5.5.1997 and also service to the dependent children on compassionate ground vide Pension Rule-178- Chapter IX to the petitioner who is widow of late Forest Guard killed on duty by the criminals for which Patmada P.S.Case No. 47 of 1983 Under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted against the accused persons. Also to set aside the Government Order No. 1513 dated 24.3.2014 (Annexure-7) which is irrelevant and not applicable. 3. Thereafter, during course of proceeding, learned counsel for Petitioner confines his prayer only on the issue 2025:JHHC:28149 2 of monetary compensation due to death of petitioner’s husband in view of resolution of the Government, wherein if any person dies while in course of duty; then he/she should be compensated by the State Government. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the husband of the Petitioner was working with the Respondents and he died while on duty and the Petitioner does not want to press the claim of Pension, Gratuity etc.; however, the Petitioner only wants that some monetary compensation in view of Circular No. 1135 dated 2nd December, 1986 which was further amended by circular dated 5th May, 1997 issued by the State of Bihar may be paid to the Petitioner, who is widow of the erstwhile employee. 5. A supplementary counter affidavit dated 20.04.2023 has been filed by the Respondent no. 3, wherein at para-7, the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected by stating as under: “That it is further submitted the Resolution dated 05/05/1997 mainly deals with the Ex-gratia Compensation payable to any of the employee of the Government who lost their lives in violent act while being on duty and from the perusal of the contents of the instant writ petition and specific contention raised by the respondent authorities, it is admitted position that the husband of the petitioner died in some Criminal activity but at the relevant time he was not on duty and due to which the FIR was registered being P.S. Case No- 47 of 1983 U/Sec 302/201 against unknown persons and as such the same is not applicable in the case of petitioner.” 6. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents relies upon the said paragraph and contends that the policy of the Government was very clear that if during course of any operation and while the police personnel was on duty and if he dies on duty; such police personnel would be entitled for compensation, but in the instant case, the husband of the Petitioner died in some 2025:JHHC:28149 3 other criminal activity and at that very relevant time he was not on duty due to which an F.I.R was registered against unknown person and thus the compensation under said scheme of the Government vide Circular No. 1135 dated 2nd December, 1986 further amended by circular dated 5th May, 1997; cannot be extended to the Petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner’s husband died on 21.08.1983 and at that time even the circular was not applicable. 7. In reply to the aforesaid objection raised by the State Counsel, learned counsel for the Petitioner could not dispute the fact by any corroborative evidence. He further could not satisfy this Court as to whether the Circular No. 1135 dated 2nd December, 1986 which was further amended by circular dated 5th May, 1997 with regard to payment of compensation to the police personnel would be applicable in the case of Petitioner’s husband, who died on 21.08.1983 itself. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk