ORDER :

1. The order of rejection dated 11.04.2014 declining the request of the petitioner for grant of compensation is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. The husband of the petitioner late P.Balan was working in Chennai Corporation as Assistant in Malaria Department and was retired and was receiving pension in the residential area at Ooteri wherein the petitioner's family was residing, a cannal work was done by PWD and Chennai Corporation for the clean of Nalla Kallvay. The petitioner had fallen into the hole and during the rainy season and died on 28.11.2012. The petitioner states that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the public authorities. They had not taken effective steps to close the hole while performing the works in that locality. Thus, the petitioner submitted an application seeking compensation. The said application was rejected on the ground that there is no provision under the scheme to grant compensation. Therefore, the petitioner has chosen to file the present Writ Petition.

3. This Court elaborately considered the scheme relating to grant of compensation in respect of death in public places. In W.P.No. 8385 of 2014 etc., batch dated 29.10.2021 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:-

“12.Citizens of our great nation are using the public infrastructures provided by the State. Footpaths, public toilets, markets, Roads, Elevators, etc., and many such public places are utilized by the citizens in general. Due to the act of God or due to the negligence of the public authorities in certain circumstances, if any accident occurs, and any person sustains injuries, no doubt, he must be compensated to some extent at least to meet out the emergency circumstances, as the State being a welfare State is duty bound to save the citizen, who is in distress on account of such accidents.

13. The Executives of the State play the pivotal role in maintenance of infrastructures in public places. The State has to ensure that such public infrastructure facilities are maintained up to the standards, so as to avoid such accidents in public places resulting loss of life. Undoubtedly, the Executives are duty bound to conduct inspections periodically and ensure such accidents do not happen at any circumstances. However, beyond their control, sometimes it happens. Thus, in such circumstances, the welfare State must look into the grievances and pay compensation at least to support the family in such emergency circumstances in an uniform manner.

14. Unfortunately, the facts prevailing in the public domain are disturbing the mind of this Court. Everyday, newspapers and media are informing the public in general that, in one case, a sum of Rs.1 Crore compensation is paid along with Government employment and in another case, a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs compensation is paid and in yet another case, a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs is paid and Rs.1 Lakh, so on and so forth. The basis for determination of quantum of compensation is absolutely unexplained and remains as mystery. The basis is not known to the public at large. It lacks transparency, which is required and a mandate under the Constitution. Similarly placed persons, who are victims of such public accidents, must be in a position to know, what is the actual compensation for which they are entitled to receive from the Government. It is as if the Executives can quantify the compensation at their own whims and fancies or based on certain extraneous considerations.

15. This Court is of the considered opinion that political considerations or any other consideration cannot be a ground for determining the quantum of compensation. Citizens of our great nation are to be treated equally, uniformly, consistently, in the manner known to the Constitution of India. We, the people of India, resolved and formed the Constitution. Thus, the payment of ex gratia in similar circumstances must be paid in an uniform manner and any inconsistency or discrimination is undoubtedly unconstitu