Petitioners are entitled to ex-gratia compensation of Rs.1,50,000 for the death of Krushna Chandra Mallik, as rejection of the claim based on rainfall criteria was found arbitrary and unreasonable.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Mohapatra, J.

1. In the present writ petition, the Petitioners have prayed for quashing of the report dated 10.03.2022 under Annexure-9 as well as the final order dated 17.06.2022 under Annexure-10 passed by the Collector- cum-D.M., Nayagarh whereby the prayer of the Petitioners for grant of ex-gratia compensation due to death of one, late Shri Krushna Chandra Mallik has been rejected.

2. The factual background leading to filing of the present writ application, in short, is that the Petitioner No.1 is the wife and the Petitioner No.2 is the son of one late Krushna Chandra Mallik. The abovenamed Krushna Chandra Mallik was engaged as a labourer in a road construction work in village Sirikibadi under Banigochha P.S. in the district of Nayagarh along with other workers. On 17.07.2013, while the work was going on, all on a sudden, a land slide took place due to heavy rainfall, as a result of which, the abovenamed Krushna Chandra Mallik died instantly at the spot due to such land slide. The matter was immediately reported to the local police. Accordingly, Banigochha PS UD Case No.1 of 2013 was registered which corresponds to UD GR Case No.7 of 2013. After completion of investigation, the I.O. has submitted a final report on 07.12.2014. In the final report, the I.O. has confirmed that the death of the abovenamed Krushna Chandra Mallik had occurred due to the land slide and fall of heavy material on the deceased. It has also been clarified in such report that there is no suspicion of any foul play.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, further referring to the Post Mortem Report dated 17.07.2013, contended that the doctor has opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to Asphyxia and due to fall of heavy material on the chest wall of the deceased. In the aforesaid factual background, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that there exists no doubt whatsoever that the death of the deceased, Krushna Chandra Mallik, had taken place due to the aforesaid land slide due to rainfall while he was working as a labourer in the construction of the road work.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further referring to the Govt. Policy dated 25.02.2012, contended that as per such policy the family of the deceased is entitled to a compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. He further contended that although the Opposite Party No.2 is empowered to grant such compensation by virtue of the Resolution dated 25.02.2012. However, the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Nayagarh did not forward the report and rejected the claim of the Petitioners at his level. He further referred to the report of the Tahasildar, Daspalla under Annexure- 9 dated 10.03.2022, which confirms the land slide and the death of the deceased was due to the aforesaid land slide. However, in his final opinion, he has stated that the case of the deceased is not a fit case for sanction of any ex-gratia compensation.

5. Finally, learned counsel for the Petitioners, drawing attention of this Court to the impugned order dated 17.06.2022 under Annexure-10, contended that the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Nayagarh has mechanically rejected the application of the Petitioners for grant of ex- gratia compensation. He further submitted that the claim of the Petitioners has been rejected on a vague ground i.e. by referring to para-3 of Odisha Relief Code i.e. the amount of the rainfall that had taken place in the locality is less than the minimum quantum of rainfall prescribed in the Odisha Relief Code. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that the impugned rejection order is absolutely illegal and arbitrar