Entitlement of Widow to Ex-Gratia Grant Following Death of Nyaya Mitra During Tenure

The petitioner, Pinku Sharma, is the widow of Late Anil Kumar Sharma, who served as a Nyaya Mitra at Gram Kachahri Jagarnathpur from February 1, 2008.

Her husband died in harness on November 19, 2023.

Following his death, the petitioner submitted representations and necessary documentation (death certificate, selection letter, etc.) to the District Magistrate, Gayaji, seeking the payment of ex-gratia/grant-in-aid as per government policy.

Despite a recommendation from the District Magistrate, Gaya, to the Director of the Panchayati Raj Department for the payment of ₹4,00,000 as ex-gratia, no disbursement was made, prompting the petitioner to seek a Writ of Mandamus.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the payment of ex-gratia/grant-in-aid and interest following the death of her husband while in service as a Nyaya Mitra.

2. Whether the court should direct the respondent authorities to process the payment within a specified timeframe based on existing departmental orders.

The court primarily relied on administrative orders issued by the Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, specifically Order No. 8P/V-05-133/2018/216 dated November 11, 2019 [Annexure-P/6], which provides for the payment of ex-gratia/grant-in-aid to the legal heirs of a Nyaya Mitra deceased during service.

The court also exercised its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue directions to state authorities to fulfill their administrative obligations in a time-bound manner.

The court examined the petitioner’s claim and the state’s response, noting that the relationship of the deceased to the position of Nyaya Mitra and the fact of his death were not in dispute.

The court took cognizance of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent nos. 3 to 5, which included a letter from the District Magistrate requesting the Panchayati Raj Department to release ₹4,00,000 for the petitioner.

The court observed that while the recommendation had been made, the state sought more time for instructions.

Consequently, the court reasoned that if the specific departmental order dated November 11, 2019, remained operative at the time of death, the state was duty-bound to ensure payment, necessitating a directive for the Additional Chief Secretary to pass a formal order.

The court held that Respondent No. 2 must pass a reasoned and speaking order within 90 days of receipt. It specifically directed that if the departmental order governing ex-gratia is still operative, the Respondent must ensure the payment is made to the petitioner within that timeframe.