The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the writ petitioner to rupees ten lacs as minimum compensation in terms of order dated 24.10.2019, as the judgment came to be delivered much after the issuance of Government order dated 24.10.2019.

JUDGMENT :

(Tashi Rabstan, J.)

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in OWP No. 01/2013, whereby the learned Single Judge while allowing the petition, held that the writ petitioner is entitled to compensation of rupees ten lacs as minimum compensation for the death of her husband.

2. The facts, as gathered from the writ file, are that the husband of writ petitioner, namely, Kartar Chand died of electrocution by high intensity electric line on 25.07.2011 at Bajalata, Jammu, when he was working as a Mason on the roof of the house of one Puran Chand son of Mangal Das. Accordingly, FIR No. 212/2011 was registered at Police Station, Nagrota under Section 304-A RPC against the concerned officials of Power Development Department. Writ petitioner filed OWP No. 01/2013 seeking compensation from the writ respondents-appellants herein on account of negligence on the part of writ respondents.

3. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition vide judgment dated 19.03.2021 held that the writ petitioner is entitled to rupees ten lacs as minimum compensation. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants-writ respondents have filed the instant appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions and also perused the appeal file. Record of writ petition was also called from the Registry.

5. The stand of appellants-writ respondents is that when the writ petitioner filed OWP No. 01/2013 seeking compensation on account of death of her husband due to electrocution, at the relevant time Government Order No. 328-PDD of 2011, dated 24.11.2011 was in force, whereby an ex-gratia relief of rupees three lacs had been allowed in case of death of a civilian due to electrocution. The stand of appellants-writ respondents is that even if any consideration was required under the policy, the writ petitioner was required to be allowed rupees three lacs in terms of order dated 24.11.2011 (supra). However, the learned Single Judge allowed rupees ten lacs as minimum compensation in favour of writ petitioner while relying upon Government Order No. 454-F of 2019, dated 24.10.2019, whereby an ex-gratia relief of rupees ten lacs has been allowed in case of death of a civilian due to electrocution due to the negligence of the Power Development Department. The further stand of appellants-writ respondents is that since the order dated 24.10.2019 (supra) does not have retrospective effect and the incident-in-question was of July, 2011; as such the learned Single Judge was wrong in allowing rupees ten lacs as minimum compensation in favour of writ petitioner.

6. The husband of writ petitioner is stated to be died on 25.07.2011 due to electrocution and the writ respondents in their objections have not disputed the same. Further, in paragraph-9 of the writ petition, the writ petitioner has specifically averred that after the death of her husband she approached the respondents through the medium of representations/requests for grant of adequate compensation, but the writ respondents had failed to do the needful. One such representation is also annexed with the writ petition, addressed to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Power Development Department; Development Commissioner (Power) and Chief Engineer, Power Development Department. The writ respondents while making reply to this paragraph have not rebutted the same in any manner; meaning thereby the writ respondents have admitted the contents of the paragraphs but despite that they did nothing, which shows their lackluster approach and indifferent attitude in dealing with such cases involving compassion, which raises a serious question mark on their functioning.

7. As regards the stand of appellants-writ respondents that even if any consideration was required under the policy the writ petitioner was required to be allowed rupees three lacs in terms of order dated 24.11.2011 (supra), we deem it proper to r