PHOOLAWANTI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the action of the State of Punjab in declining to release the ex gratia ant to the petitioners on the ground that the deceased was employed with the State Bank of Patiala in conformity with the instructions dated 29/08/1995 and the law? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is a widow. Petitioner No. 2 is her minor son. Ram Narain, the husband of petitioner No. 1, was working as a Head Cashier with the State Bank of Patiala. He was posted at Khanauri, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur. On 4/06/1986, Ram Narain as well as the Gunman-Jai Singh were killed by the terrorists. F.I.R. No. 57 dated 4/06/1986 was recorded at Police Station Moonak under Sections 392/394/397, IPC. After the death, the petitioners represented to the State of Punjab for these release of the amount payable by way of ex gratia grant. Vide letter dated 24/06/1987, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition, the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, wrote to the Manager of the Bank regarding the amount given to the family of the deceased. However, the payment was not made. The petitioners represented. Even a legal notice was sent. Ultimately, vide letter dated 4/08/1998 the second respondent viz. the Bank informed petitioner No. 1 that there was no provision in the Rules for the grant of any amount. So far as the State Government is concerned, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Moonak, sent his comments on the notice. He mentioned that the Bank had paid the amounts due to the widow by way of gratuity and provident fund besides the family pension. With regard to the ex-gratia grant, he informed the Deputy Commissioner that he had to consider the matter. The long and short of the story is that no payment was made. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not releasing the payment, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition. They pray that the respondents be directed to release the amount of Rs. 1 lac along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Moonak. It has been inter alia averred that the deceased"was neither a private citizen nor was he killed during the action against terrorists. It is submitted that he was killed when he was on duty in the bank as a Cashier and thus he is not a private citizen covered under the definition of innocent civilian". It has been further stated that"only Punjab Govt. employees are entitled to ex-gratia relief that too to be paid by their respective departments/appointing authorities.................". Relying upon the instructions issued vide letter dated 25/07/1991 it has been averred that"no ex-gratia is to be given by the Punjab Government to the dependents of the Central Govt. employees including Army personnel killed in terrorist violence in Punjab". It has been further stated that vide letter dated 9/01/1987 the applicant was informed that the petitioner is not entitled to any ex-gratia relief as the deceased was a bank employee. On these premises, the respondents maintain that the petitioners are not entitled to the grant of any relief.