Ravindra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19510 of 2015 ====================================================== Ravindra Yadav s/o Late Bhonu Yadav, resident of village- Ganjpar, P.s.- Rajgir, District- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Principal Secretary, Disaster Management Department, Bihar, Patna 3.

The District Magistrate, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif 4.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Rajgir, Nalanda 5.

The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Rajgir, Nalanda 6.

The Circle Officer, Rajgir, Nalanda ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, GA 10 :

Mr. Manoj Kr. Yadav, AC to GA 10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 07-04-2023 Though the present writ petition has been filed for payment of ex-gratia amount of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the petitioner in lieu of the death of his son on account of him having fallen in a pond, however, the learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the supplementary counter affidavit filed in the present case and has submitted that the policy for making such ex-gratia payment has come into being only on 01.04.2015, as has been stated in the Joint Inquiry Report dated 06.04.2023, which has been annexed as Annexure-B to the supplementary counter affidavit, filed in the present case, today, in the Court itself, which has been taken on record.

Patna High Court CWJC No.19510 of 2015(3) dt.07-04-2023 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the fact that the scheme regarding grant of ex-gratia payment/ compensation on account of drowning of a person in river/ pond/ ditch has come into being only on 01.04.2015, whereas the death of the son of the petitioner has taken place on 11.07.2014. In such view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to press the present petition, however seeks liberty to approach the respondent- authorities for a sympathetic consideration of his claim.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) rinkee/- U