Rashmi Rekha Nag vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Prayer in this writ application is for a direction to the respondents to provide the following relief(s) to the petitioner.

I. To pay the entire benefits pursuant to the Government notification No. 350 dated 21.3.2001 (Annexure-6).

II. To pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per month from the Jharkhand Police Benevolent Fund, as recommended by the Superintendent of Police on 9.5.2006 (Annexure-3).

III. To pay the Family Pension and other admissible dues including payment of salary of the deceased on the scale of pay applicable to the officer of the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police.

Petitioner''s case in brief is that her husband Late Sushil Kumar Nag who was a senior police officer, had died as a result of extremist violence while discharging his duties on 7.12.2004, leaving behind the petitioner, his widow and two sons.

Earlier, the State of Jharkhand had taken a policy decision to provide monetary and other benefits by way of compensation to the dependants of the deceased Government Servants including the police personnel who die as a result of extremist violence. The scheme which was notified by the Government vide its notification dated 21.3.2001 (Annexure-6), had assured the following benefits to the dependants of the deceased State Government Servants.

I. Payment of a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs by way of ex-gratia to the dependants of the Government Servants.

II. Payment in one lump-sum of total monthly salary which the deceased Government Servant would have earned till the date of his retirement.

III. To provide employment to the dependant of the deceased Government Servant.

IV. To provide rent free Government quarters for a period of one year.

V. To pay expense of the two dependant children of the deceased Government Servant including the tuition fees and hostel charges. Such expense will be borne by the State Government by making payment directly to the educational institution.

Upon the untimely death of the petitioner''s husband, the Superintendent of Police had declared payment of Rs. 500/- per month for a period of 20 years to the dependants of the deceased police officer from the Jharkhand Police Benevolent Fund.

The petitioner submitted her application before the concerned authorities of the respondents, requesting them to meet the educational expenses of her two sons, the elder being a student of Business Administration in the Institute of Business Management and Research, Kolkata and the younger being a student of Siddhartha Dental College, Tumkur, West Bengal. She had enclosed all the relevant information regarding the institutions where her children were studying.

The Home Department of the State Government upon receiving the petitioner''s application, had made necessary enquiries from the Principals of the respective Institutes.

The petitioner''s grievances are:

(i) That even though, the principals of the Institute of Business Management and Research, Kolkata and the Siddhartha Dental College, by their respective letters, had informed the State Government about the total fees for the entire course of each of the students, but against the total amounts of fees of Rs. 25,75,740/-, the State Government had released a sum of Rs. 6.3 lakhs only towards the educational expenses of both the sons for the entire course, on the plea that the State Government had fixed a ceiling of maximum amount of Rs. 90,000/- per annum for each student.

(ii) That the amount of Rs. 500/- per month, as declared by the Superintendent of Police for payment to the dependants of the deceased police officer, has not been paid.

(iii) That the Departmental Promotion Committee had considered and recommended the case of the deceased husband of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Dy. Superintendent of Police during his life time and acting upon such recommendation, the concerned Department of the State Government had issued notification regarding his promotion. Yet, the respondents have refused to grant salary of the deceased on the scale applicable to the officers of the rank of the Dy. Superintendent of Police.

Shri S. Arun, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the policy decision taken by the State Government, as declared in its notification (Annexure-6), was intended to by way of granting compensation to the dependants of the deceased police personnel who die on account of the extremist violence. The benefits which were assured under the policy decision, was indeed a promise made by the State Government and State Government is bound to honour and abide by its commitment as declared in its policy decision. The Rule of Promissory estoppel would prohibit the State Government from denying the benefits assured under the notification, which had accrued to the petitioner and her dependant sons.

Referring to the notification (Annexure-6), learned Counsel submits that while assuring payment of educational expenses of the dependant children of the deceased Government Servant, the State Government in its aforesaid notification, did not lay down any ceiling or limit of the amount payable towards the education of the children. Even if, by the subsequent modification of the earlier notification, a ceiling was prescribed, the same would apply prospectively from the date of modification and not retrospectively.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The stand taken by the respondents is that the State Government had taken a policy decision vide Annexure-6 to compensate the dependants of the police personnel who die as a result of extremist violence and to pay certain monetary benefits to the dependants of the deceased Government Servant including expenses towards the education of two dependant children of the deceased Government Servant but by a subsequent decision, the State Government had modified the earlier notification by fixing a ceiling of maximum amount of Rs. 90,000/- per annum for each of the two dependant children of the deceased Government Servant. The modified notification was issued by the Government on 10.5.2008. Accordingly, a total amount of Rs. 6.3 lakhs has been paid to the petitioner towards the educational expense of her two sons for entire course.

The further stand of the respondents is that the declaration even if made by the Superintendent of Police to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to the dependants of the deceased police officer from the Jharkhand Police Benevolent Fund, the same was only a recommendation of the Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum. Since the Jharkhand Police Benevolent Fund is a fund which, is fully funded and managed by the subordinate police officers and its representatives, the Managing Committee of the Fund had taken a decision that the grant from the Benevolent Fund would not be paid to the families of the police officers and men who are killed in the extremist action as because, the State Government provides ex-gratia grant of Rs. 10.00 lakhs and full pay for the remaining period of service. As such, the petitioner cannot claim benefit on such recommendation of the Superintendent of Police.

As regards the petitioner''s claim for computation of the salary of her deceased husband in the pay scale of Dy. Superintendent of Police, it is explained by the counsel for the respondent that while it is true that pursuant to the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the concerned Department of the State Government had notified the promotion of the petitioner''s husband to the post of Dy. Superintendent of Police, but even prior to the date of his promotion, the petitioner''s husband had died and he could not assume the charge of the office and post of the Dy. Superintendent of Police. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim salary payable on the scale applicable to the Dy. Superintendent of Police.

From the rival submissions, the question which arise is,

i. Whether the State Government is bound by the principle of Promissory and Estoppel grant to the petitioner all the benefits as assured under the Government notification (Annexure-6)?

ii. Whether by introducing modification in the earlier policy decision, the State Government cannot refuse the benefits to the petitioner which was assured under the original notification?

The doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine and is founded on a representation with regard to an assurance as to future conduct. The representation, be it of promise or intention or future conduct, on which this doctrine is founded, is susceptible of generating enforceable promises and binding on contractual obligation even where there is no consideration. The principle would apply to the Government and statutory bodies also. If the Government makes a promise on the basis of which legitimate expectations are generated in the promise and the promise acts in reliance upon it, the Government also can be compelled to make good such promise for every private individual.

However, even though, the doctrine of promissory, estoppel and legitimate expectation would apply to the respondent State Government, the question which still remains is, as to whether the principle of the doctrines would be absolutely binding on the State Government and whether the obligation on its part can reasonably be modified. In the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:

When the Government is able to show that in view of the facts which have transpired since the making of the promise, public interest would be prejudiced if the Government were required to carry out the promise, the court would have to balance the public interest with the Government carrying out a promise made to the citizens which has induced the citizen to act upon it and alter his position and the public interest likely to suffer if the promise were required to be carried out by the Government and determine which way the equity lies.

The Supreme Court has further observed that:

The doctrine of "legitimate expectation" has developed as a principle of reasonableness and fairness and is used against the statutory bodies and the Government authorities on whose representations or promises, parties or citizens act and some detrimental consequences ensue because of refusal of authorities to fulfill their promise or honour their commitments.

Relief to the parties aggrieved by action or promise of public authorities, can be granted on the doctrine of "legitimate expectation". However, when grant of such relief is likely to harm larger public interest, the doctrine cannot be allowed to be pressed into service.

The exposition of the doctrine of "promissory estoppel" and "legitimate expectation" as made by the Apex Court in the above judgment would imply that the principles of these two doctrines cannot be made absolutely binding on the Government and statutory bodies. On the principles of rule of equity, if the Government is able to convince that it would be in the larger interest of the public that it should be exempted from the performance of the promise made earlier, the court would have to balance the public interest with the Government carrying out the promises made to the citizens and determine which way the equity lies.

In the present case, the stand of the respondents is that the modification of the earlier notification has been made in the larger public interest since, payment of unlimited amount towards the educational expense of the dependent children, would entail acute financial hardship upon the State Exchequer.

There is force in the plea advanced by the respondents. While declaring its policy decision to compensate the dependant of the Government Servants who are killed as a result of the extremist violence, the State Government may not have anticipated, nor contemplated to provide unlimited funds towards the educational expenses of the dependent children of the deceased Government Servants. By issuing the subsequent notification dated 10.5.2008 (Annexure-A), declared to be explanatory to the earlier notification dated 21.3.2001 (Annexure-6), the Government had only sought to explain that the assurance and promise for meeting the educational expense of the two dependant children of the deceased Government Servant would be subject to the ceiling of maximum amount of Rs. 90,000/- per annum per student. Imposition of ceiling has been explained in the larger public interest. The notification dated 21.3.2001 (Annexure-6) cannot be read in isolation and it has to be read together with the notification dated 10.5.2008 (Annexure-A) and the assured benefits under the Government earlier policy decision have to be read in the context of both the notification read together. It cannot therefore be said that the respondent State Government has resiled from its commitment in respect of the promise made for bearing the educational expense of the two dependant children of the deceased police officer.

Admittedly, in consonance with its promise the State Government, has released a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakhs in favour of the petitioner towards ex-gratia payment and has also released the total salary at the scale last drawn by the deceased, which he would have earned till the date of his retirement from service and further subject to the limitation of maximum ceiling, the State Government has also released the amounts towards educational expenses of the two dependant sons of the deceased police officer.

In the light of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this application and therefore the same is accordingly dismissed.