The rightful beneficiary of ex-gratia compensation should be determined and the amount should be disbursed accordingly, without wrongful deprivation.

JUDGMENT :

The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a direction upon the concerned Respondent Authorities for payment of the ex-gratia compensation a of Rs.5 lakhs under the Government of Assam to the martyrs family.

2. The facts as could be discerned from the materials on record reveals that the Petitioner admittedly is the daughter of Late Loknath Saikia who was killed by the police when he was participating in the Assam movement on 30.11.1981. The Petitioner on coming to learn about the said ex-gratia compensation scheme of the Government of Assam applied for the said grant of Rs. 5 lakhs but the same was refused on the ground that the said amount have been already disbursed to the Respondent No. 4 who is the brother of Late Loknath Saikia. It is under such circumstances that the instant writ petition has been filed. The Petitioner in the said writ petition have enclosed the certificate issued by Additional Deputy Magistrate, Nagaon dated 13.08.2017 issued in pursuance to Rule 2(a) of the Assam Public Service (Preferential Appointment) Rules, 1999 certifying that her father was killed in connection with the participation in the Assam movement on the problems of foreigners and that the Petitioner was the daughter of Late Loknath Saikia.

3. Pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, the Respondent No. 4 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition, wherein at paragraph 6 he had duly admitted that he had received the said amount of Rs. 5 lakhs and further that he never made any claim for the said amount. It was further mentioned by the Respondent No. 4 in his affidavit that the Petitioner’s mother got married with another person immediately after the demise of the brother of the Respondent No.4 and the Petitioner also went with her mother before the grant of the additional exgratia amount of Rs. 5 lakhs by the authority. It was also mentioned in the said affidavit that out of the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs so received in the month of December, 2016, the Respondent No. 4 constructed a monument in memory of his brother Late Loknath Saikia in the courtyard of the Respondent’s house by spending an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs and further donated an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the development of Shiv Mandir of Brahmachari Satra on 01.02.2017. Further to that, an amount of Rs.10,000/-was donated for development of a temple (Namgarh) of Brahmachari Satra in the month of February, 2017.

4. The Petitioner filed an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-n-opposition denying the contents of the said affidavit-in-opposition and stating inter alia that the amount so paid and/or donated is nothing but absurd and without the knowledge of the Petitioner.

5. The records further reveals that the affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the Respondent No. 1 through the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Implementation of Assam Accord Department. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was mentioned that the payment was made to the Respondent No. 4 on the basis of a report dated 25.11.2016 received from the Respondent No. 2. It was further mentioned that the payment was made to the Respondent No. 4 through the RTGS but later on 27.12.2016, a Communication was received from the Respondent No. 2 stating the name of the Petitioner as the next of the kin of Late Loknath Saikia. It was further stated that since the amount of ex-gratia was already paid to the Respondent No. 4, the question of payment to another beneficiary did not arise.

6. This Court at this stage also finds it relevant to take note of the enclosures to the said affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 1. Annexure-A of the said affidavit-in-opposition is a Communication dated 25.11.2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon whereby the list of NOKs of the martyrs of Assam falling under Nagaon District was enclosed. The list upon being perused reveals that against the martyr Late Loknath Saikia, the name of the Respondent No. 4 was shown alongwith his address, mobi