Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Feb 6: The Division Bench of High Court has upheld the writ court judgment directing the Government to pay Rs. 10 lakh as compensation to its employee in lieu of serious injury due to cross firing way back in 2000.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Puneet Gupta while upholding the writ court judgment said the victim suffered injury during cross firing between the militants and the security forces which ultimately resulted in amputation of his right arm during the course of his employment.
Court said, the victim-Jehangir Ahmad Khan was serving as Helper in the Forest Department and, therefore, was entitled to salary. Nevertheless, he, who was made to live the rest of his life without right arm, has suffered immense loss in terms of amenities of life.
“The respondent-victim would not be in a position to supplement his small amount of pension by doing any menial job after his retirement without the right arm. Besides, he would face the stigma of being a person without the right arm for the rest of his life”, DB said
The writ court judgment was challenged by the Government, on the ground that the writ court has not appreciated the fact that the respondent-victim was a Government employee and, therefore, the injury suffered by him did not adversely affect his source of livelihood, i.e., salary.
Court added that it is because of the injury, which ultimately resulted in amputation of his right arm, the respondent suffered huge mental pain and agony. In such circumstances, the compensation of Rs. 10 lakh in addition to Rs 75,000 as ex-gratia, cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be said to be exorbitant or irrational.
“In our Constitutional scheme, it is the constitutional provisions and laws of the land, which govern the UT/State. The respondent – UT, having not enforced the constitutional provisions and as a corollary thereof, has failed to perform its obligatory duty as cast upon it to provide succor to the petitioner-victim enabling him to lead his life as an able-bodied person. Thus, respondent – UT is duty bound to compensate the petitioner”, read the judgment.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
