Sudhir Kumar vs The State of Bihar and Others

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.—This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay to the Petitioner ex-gratia compensation and employment to a Class-IV post in the State Government.

It is the stand of the Petitioner that his father Birendra Kumar Sinha was a porter at Koilwar Flag Station. According to the Petitioner he was killed in extremist violence at the place of his work and thus entitled for ex-gratia amount as also employment to a Class IV post in the State Government. According to the Petitioner his father was killed by the extremist on 24.3.2001 and the memo given by the Station Master, Ara led to the registration of G.R.P.S. Case No. 43 of 2001. It is relevant here to state that in the first information report the officer-in-charge of the Government Railway Police Station has referred to the information given by the Station Master, Ara that Petitioner''s father was killed in the office. However, in the first information report it has been clearly stated that in the office, where the dead body was found, there was no stain of blood and according to the informant deceased was killed somewhere else and brought there.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 5 in which the assertion of the Petitioner that his father died in extremist violence has been denied. It is the stand of the Respondents that Petitioner''s father having not died in the extremist violence, Petitioner is neither entitled for ex-gratia payment nor the employment.

Mr. Anup Kumar appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that Petitioner''s father in fact died in extremist violence and the stand taken by the Respondents in the counter affidavit is not fit to be accepted. Mr. S.J. Rahman, Government Pleader No. VII however appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that during the course of investigation it has not been found that the Petitioner''s father died in the extremist violence and as such the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief claimed in the present application.

Having appreciated the rival submission I am of the opinion that the Petitioner is not entitled for the grant of the reliefs claimed in the present application. There is oath against oath. Petitioner states that his father died in the extremist violence which fact has been denied by the Respondents in the counter affidavit. There is no material of unimpeachable character before me so that I can record a finding that the Petitioner''s father died in the extremist violence. Petitioner shall be entitled for grant of reliefs claimed in the present application only when it is established that the Petitioner''s father died in the extremist violence. It has not been established in the present proceeding and as such the relief sought for is not fit to be granted in the present application.

In the result, the application is dismissed. However, dismissal of the writ application shall not stand in the way of the Petitioner in taking recourse to any other remedy available to him in law.