MAJOR ARVIND KUMAR SUHAG Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for a direction for payment of an ex gratia amount from the State of Haryana vide policy issued through the Chief Secretary to Haryana that enables a person reported killed/missing/prisoners of war/disabled E.S.M. (Ex Servicemen) during various operations. The petitioner has suffered 100% disability in an accident while he was in service in Kargil area. The claim was made by invoking clauses of eligibility that the policy delineates. To our case would be relevant Clause 7(a) and (f), which are reproduced as under :-

(2.) Although there has been no formal order of rejection of petitioner's claim, the stand for the Government for its non-payment is known through the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent. It is contended that the cause of the injury was a subject of enquiry by the Army and it was borne out through the enquiry report that the petitioner and another suffered injuries in a motor transport accident and the negligence was on the part of the defence personnel. It is also stated that the injuries were not during any heroic act to enable the petitioner to make a claim.

(3.) Ex-gratia payment is not always, paradoxically, an act of charity. It is invariably supported by reasonable policy so that the State funds are not squandered by wrongful consideration. If the policy itself is in challenge, it shall definitely become possible for a Court to see the reasonableness of the policy. However, when the policy consideration is not in challenge, a person that makes a claim under the terms of policy definitely obtains a legal right for its enforcement and all that would be necessary to show is that the claim is within the four corners of the stated policy. In this case, the eligibility for a person to make the claim obtains specifically through Clause (f) which we have already extracted above that enables a person to claim the benefit arising out of disability through a motor transport accident in an operational area covered by the Army except when the Court of enquiry has blamed the individual for negligence or self-infliction or attempt to suicide. It can be noticed that it is not the stand of the government that there has been any self-inflicted or a wanton negligence, though in the written statement, it is stated out of the blue, as it were, that the negligence was on the part of the defence personnel. On the other hand, the text of the Court of enquiry, which has been placed as document shows that the injury sustained by the petitioner was attributable to military service. The act of heroism which the statement claims that the petitioner's act did not evoke, is in some sense a wrongly exaggerated expression. I do not see from the terms of the policy that the person must have been there actually placing his fingers on the trigger of a gun or hurling a bomb in military action to be entitled to the promised payment. A person, who is in the place of action at the Army and who suffers an injury in the manner contemplated in the policy, which includes an accident in an operational area that is not due to negligence of the person, could well make a successful claim. Learned counsel appearing for the State, Mr. Sharma, however, relies on a clarification issued by the Chief Secretary to the Haryana on 07.11.2001 that reads as follows :-