STILYGEORGE v. UNION OF INDIA

Delhi High Court · 08 Sep 2017 · 2017:DHC:8678
Vibhu BakhrU
W.P.(C) 8879/2015
2017:DHC:8678
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that while the Union of India is not liable to pay compensation for deaths of Indian nationals employed overseas, it must assist petitioners in securing employment benefits from foreign employers through diplomatic channels.

Full Text
Translation output
'> $-13 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 8879/2015
STILYGEORGE Petitioner
ThroughMr Jose Abraham, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondent . Through Ms Monika Arora, Advocate for UOI.
AND
W.P.(C) 9880/2015
DHAROHARA DEVI Petitioner
Through Mr Jose Abraham, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondent
Through Mr Archana Gaur, Adocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
08.09.2017
ORDER

1. The petitioners have filed the present petitions, inter alia, for seeking assistance and compensation from the respondent.

2. The petitioner in W.P. (C) 8879/2015 is the widow of late Sh George %. Antony Karedan who had been working with Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs, Qaryat al ulia, rural complex since

1997. Late Sh George Antony expired in an accident that occurred on 31.12.2014. The petitioner in W.P. (C) 98880/2015 is the mother of one late 2017:DHC:8678 Sh Dhirendra Kumar Singh who was also employed in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with Haif Company as a driver pal finger operator. Mr Dhirendra Kumar Singh also expired in an accident overseas. The petitioners have not received any compensation for the demise of their husband/son. They claim that are entitled to certain employment benefits of their respective deceased relatives. However, they have been unable to claim the same from the employers. It is in this regard that the petitioners have sought the assistance ofthe respondent.

3. Insofar as the claim for compensation from the respondent is concerned, the same is clearly untenable and no relief in this regard can be granted. However, as far as their quest for assistance to obtain compensation/employment benefits of their deceased relative is concerned,' this Court is of the view that the respondent should extend all possible assistance through diplomatic channels or otherwise to ascertain as to whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief and if so further assist them to secure the same.

4. The petitioners are at liberty to make fresh representation and provide all the details available with them regarding the incidents and/or the respective employers of the deceased persons. The respondent will consider the same and take such steps as may be feasible.

5. The petitions are disposed of VIBHU BAKHRU, J SEPTEMBER 08, 2017