Per: Aparesh Kumar Singh, J

The appellant being aggrieved by judgment dated 5th April, 2013 passed in W. P. (S) No. 626 of 2003 by learned Single Judge is before this Court in the present appeal as while allowing the writ petition the respondent/appellant was directed to extend all benefits to the writ petitioner(hereinafter referred to as petitioner) under Resolution dated 21st March, 2001 and a cost of Rs. 50,000/ was also imposed to be paid to the petitioner.

2. A short question which was before the writ court and is also now the bone of contention is whether the petitioner is entitled to the enhanced benefit of compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs under the Resolution dated 21st March, 2001 or not? The contention of the appellant is that since the husband of the petitioner died as a Chaukidar in Bhandra Police Station on being killed by extremists in the night of 25th January, 2001, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 2.5 lakhs only (which has already been paid to her) under the scheme/circular of 5th May, 1997, Annexure1 applicable and not on the basis of circular dated 21st March, 2001, which came into force after the death of petitioner's husband.

3. The short facts, which are material for deciding this issue and admitted by the parties is that the husband of the petitioner died on 25th January, 2001 being killed in extremists violence while working as Choukidar under Bhandra Police Station which led to the institution of an F.I.R. being Bhandra P. S. Case No. 06 of 2001 under Sections 147, 148,149, 364, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17/18 of C.L.A. Act on 26th January, 2001. The scheme for enhanced compensation up to the extent of Rs. 10 lakhs came into force from 21st March, 2001, (hereinafter referred to as the “New Scheme”), Annexure-2 issued by Home Department, Government of Jharkhand. The decision to pay compensation of Rs. 2.5 lakhs to the petitioner was taken on 13th September, 2001 on issuance of sanction letter to the Office of Accountant General for payment of the same. The office of Accountant General issued the payment order on 13th February, 2002 and the payments were received by the petitioner of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on 9th April, 2002.

4. Learned Standing Counsel No. III, Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra relying upon the circular dated 31st March, 2001 submitted that the circular is prospective in nature by its language and cannot be intended to retrospectively apply to cover the cases like that of the petitioner whose husband died before coming into force of the instant circular on 21st March, 2001. Therefore, the case of the petitioner should have been dismissed by learned Single Judge as she could not avail the benefit of enhanced compensation under the new circular. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the learned writ court has erroneously relied upon the judgment which are inapplicable to the facts of the case such as in the case of Shashikalabai (Smt.) Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (1998) 5 SCC 332, which was under Fatal Accidents Act and not relevant for the present case. Learned writ court has also erroneously relied on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case arising under the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 reported in (2007) 11 SCC 616. The other judgments relied upon by learned writ court while giving a liberal and beneficial construction to the instant scheme/circular as a welfare provision are also not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Counsel for the appellant has, however, relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corpn., Patiala through its General Manager Vs. Kulwant Kaur and Ors. reported in 2009 (4) SCC 32 in respect of compensation arising out of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which raised the compensation to Rs. 50,000/ under no fault liability could not be made retrospectively applicable