Difference in compensation to slain cops triggers resentment


Differing compensation to the martyred Uttar Pradesh cops by the Akhilesh Yadav regime has triggered resentment among the state’s policemen and other organisations.

The state government had given Rs 50 lakh to the widow of the slain deputy superintendent Zia ul Haque. He was shot dead allegedly by a mob at Kunda in Pratapgarh district in March this year. The government had also given jobs to his widow and his brother.

Sources said the government had violated norms by offering jobs to two members of the slain DSP’s family. According to the existing provisions only one member of the martyr's family could be given the job.

The Akhilesh Yadav regime gave only Rs 10 lakh to the wife of sub-inspector R P Dwivedi, who had been shot dead by miscreants a few days back while chasing them in Allahabad district.

RTI activist Nutan Thakur has shot off a letter to the principal secretary, home, seeking detail of the policy of the state government in giving compensation to martyred policemen. She has also sought to know why the government was discriminating among the martyrs.

The Provincial Police Service Association has also taken strong exception to the alleged discrimination.

“The martyrs should be treated equally. They should not be differentiated,” the association president Jugal Kishore said here.

Recently, the Allahabad High Court had also directed the government to explain its policy on payment of compensation to the martyrs.

BJP has accused the Akhilesh government of adopting what it alleged a ‘communal approach’ even in payment of compensation.

“The slain DSP was a Muslim and hence the state government lost no time in giving a huge compensation and also two jobs to his family members. The government feared a Muslim backlash,” said a senior state BJP leader.

Sources said there were several families of martyred policemen who were yet to be offered jobs, even several months after their death.

Some social organisations plan to move the court against what they alleged was a discriminatory policy of the government.

Liked the story?

  • 0

    Happy
  • 0

    Amused
  • 0

    Sad
  • 0

    Frustrated
  • 0

    Angry