N SRI BINDU Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Over the past few decades, not only police officials' of different ranks, but also innocent citizens were killed by extremists. The Government evolved a policy for protecting the interests of the dependants of the police personnel killed by extremists. The policy provides for payment of ex-gratia, appointment of one of the dependants on compassionate grounds, payment of salary till the deceased would have attained the age of superannuation etc. So far as the civilians are concerned, initially a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid as ex-gratia to their dependants. The amount was enhanced thereafter. This was followed by a decision, by the Government to appoint one of the dependants of deceased on compassionate grounds. G.O. Ms. No. 469, General Administration (SC.A) Department, dated 08.11.1996, was issued, in this regard. However, the benefit was restricted to cases, where, the persons, who are killed subsequent to 26.02.1996. Recently, the Government reviewed its policy and issued G.O. Ms. No. 504, General Administration (SC.A) Department, dated 11.08.2008, extending the benefit to the cases, where the innocent civilians were killed by extremists, prior to 26.02.1996 also.

(2.) The father of the Petitioner was killed by extremists on 25.01.1993. The mother of the Petitioner was paid ex-gratia of Rs. 25,000/-, on 30.03.1993. Another sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid on 03.06.1995. Since the death of the father of the Petitioner occurred before 26.02.1996, the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds was not extended to them.

(3.) In the light of G.O. Ms. No. 504, dated 11.08.2008, issued by the Government, the Petitioner submitted an application to the Government to provide appointment on compassionate grounds. Her case was recommended by a Minister in the Government also. Remarks of the District Collector, the 2nd Respondent herein, were called for. On the basis of the remarks, the 3rd Respondent issued proceedings, dated 12.07.2010, rejecting the case of the Petitioner, on the ground that she was a minor, at the time of death of her father. The same is challenged in this writ petition.