Madhuri Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.

Madhuri Devi vs State of Jharkhand and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Jharkhand Decided May 10, 2006

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/518355

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/518355
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
Decided On: May 10, 2006
Case Number: WP(S) No. 101 of 2005
Subject: Constitution
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Article 215: [M. Karpaga Vinayagam, CJM, .Y.Eqbal & Amareshwar Sahay, R.K. Merathia, Narendra Nath Tiwari, JJ] Contempt Proceedings Review Powers of High Court Held, Article 215 of the Constitution vests the High Court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish fo...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Madhuri Devi

Advocate P. Kumar, Adv.

Respondent

State of Jharkhand and ors.

Advocate H.K. Singh, S.C.I.

Legal References

Cases Referred: State of Jharkhand and Anr. v. Samitri Devi and Anr.
Reported In: [2006(3)JCR264(Jhr)]

Excerpt

.....record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of..........was allowed by this court in favour of sametri devi (supra) and the aforesaid order was also affirmed by a division bench vide order dated 10th march, 2005 passed in lpa no. 507 of 2004 state of jharkhand and anr. v. samitri devi and anr.6. in the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration of the age of the deceased, this court is of the view that minimum a sum of rs. one lakh should be paid towards compensation to the widow of the deceased.7. so far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it appears that in terms with the government resolution, the case of similarly situated person has been considered by a committee consisting of deputy commissioner, chatra, superintendent of police, chatra and three others and recommended his name and others for compassionate appointment vide memo no. 1036 dated 12th november, 2004 but the case of the petitioner has not yet been considered.8. having regard to the facts and circumstances, the case is remitted with a direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner the total compensation amount of rs. one lakh after adjusting the compensation amount already paid in her favour and thereby to pay her the rest of rs. 40,000/-(forth thousand) within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the respondents will be liable to pay the interest @ 8% per annum from the date of death of the deceased.9. the deputy commissioner, chatra and superintendent of police, chatra are also directed to place the case of petitioner before the appropriate compassionate appointment committee for consideration of her case for compassionate appointment in terms with the guideline issued by the state vide resolution dated 18th may, 2003 and pass an appropriate order, within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the respondents will be liable to pay a cost of rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) in favour of petitioner.10. the petitioner will produce a copy of.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction on the respondents to pay her compensation amount of Rs. One lakh and for further direction on the respondents to consider her case for appointment in the services of the State, her husband late Naresh Dangi having killed by extremists (MCC organisation).

2. According to petitioner, her husband late Naresh Dangi was running a business in the home district of Chantra. He used to assist the police to apprehend the extremists. On 19th November, 1999, when the deceased, Naresh Dangi left for village Belharat about 4 a.m. and reached there at about 5 a.m., the extremists kid napped and brought him in a jungle and committed his murder by cutting into several pieces alleging him to be a spy of the police. The incidence was reported and FIR was lodged against 8-10 unknown extremists being Itkhori PS case No. 100 of 1999.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not paid her compensation, which should not be less than Rs. one lakh nor considered her case for appointment on compassionate ground.

4. Counsel for the State submitted that as per the old guideline, circulated vide letter No. 1701 dated 21st September. 1987, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was payable. The State of Jharkhand from its Home Department issued guideline contained in letter No. 3002 dated 8th November, 2001 enhancing to Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. By subsequent letter dated 18th, May, 2003, it was also decided to consider the case of a dependent of the deceased for appointment in the services of the State, if killed by extremists and the deceased had no criminal antecedent. It was further submitted that the widow has already been paid a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as compensation.

5. It appears that similar case fell for consideration before this Court in 'Sametri Devi and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. WP (C) No. 3233 of 2002. In the said case, the husband of said Sametri Devi (supra) was brutally murdered by extremists called MCC. Having noticed that in similar circumstances, the Government had already paid a sum of Rs. One lakh by way of compensation to the heirs of other deceased persons, who have been brutally murdered by extremists, by Judgment dated 3rd March, 2003 compensation amount of Rs. One lakh was allowed by this Court in favour of Sametri Devi (supra) and the aforesaid order was also affirmed by a Division Bench vide order dated 10th March, 2005 passed in LPA No. 507 of 2004 State of Jharkhand and Anr. v. Samitri Devi and Anr.

6. In the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration of the age of the deceased, this Court is of the view that minimum a sum of Rs. one lakh should be paid towards compensation to the widow of the deceased.

7. So far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it appears that in terms with the Government resolution, the case of similarly situated person has been considered by a Committee consisting of Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, Superintendent of Police, Chatra and three others and recommended his name and others for compassionate appointment vide Memo No. 1036 dated 12th November, 2004 but the case of the petitioner has not yet been considered.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the case is remitted with a direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner the total compensation amount of Rs. One lakh after adjusting the compensation amount already paid in her favour and thereby to pay her the rest of Rs. 40,000/-(forth thousand) within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the respondents will be liable to pay the interest @ 8% per annum from the date of death of the deceased.

9. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra and Superintendent of Police, Chatra are also directed to place the case of petitioner before the appropriate Compassionate Appointment Committee for consideration of her case for compassionate appointment in terms with the guideline issued by the State vide Resolution dated 18th May, 2003 and pass an appropriate order, within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the respondents will be liable to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) in favour of petitioner.

10. The petitioner will produce a copy of this order before the concerned officer, including the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra and S.P., Chatra.

11. This writ petition is allowed, with the aforesaid observations and directions:

12. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the counsel for the parties.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2006 Same Parties Madhuri Devi vs State of Jharkhand and ors. Same Subject Constitution Same Judge S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

Constitution