KRISHNA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is widow of an ex-serviceman, has filed the present writ petition praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 06.10.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the respondents whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of ex-gratia lump-sum compensation in the light of Policy Instructions dated 22.09.1998 (Annexure P-5) stands rejected on the ground that her claim is not covered as the husband of the petitioner Late Hawaldar Suresh Pal died due to cardiac arrest. Prayer has also been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the husband of the petitioner as a Martyr entitling the petitioner for the grant of benefits as per the Policy Instructions dated 22.09.1998 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Government of India and Instructions dated 30.09.1999 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana (Annexure P-6).

(2.) As per the contention of the petitioner, her husband joined the Indian Army on 23.01.1985 as a Jawan and was promoted as a Hawaldar in SKT in 666 R&O SQN and was posted in Leh in an operation area. He was discharging his duties with sincerity and with utmost honesty as per the satisfaction of the respondents when on 01.10.2000 while he was on duty in high alert area in OP Rakshak Operation, he died during operation in the field area. The cause of death was mentioned as acute circulatory failure, brain (cerebral) anoxia, which was attributed to service granting the petitioner special family pension. The body of the husband of the petitioner was brought to his native village by the army officials and the local administration were present along with the respectable of the society where the body of the husband of the petitioner was put to fire with full honour as is usually given to martyrs which would indicate that the death of the husband of the petitioner was not natural but he had died while performing his duties in operation area in a highly adverse atmosphere. The claim of the petitioner for grant of ex-gratia lumpsum compensation, which was a special benefit in cases of death of the defence services personnel who died in harness, was rejected on the ground the claim of the petitioner was not covered by the Instructions dated 22.09.1998 as the cause of death of the husband of the petitioner was natural because of which, the death of the husband of the petitioner was classified as physical casualty and not a battle casualty disentitling her to the claim made by her.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued his case basing the same on the instructions dated 22.09.1998. He contends that the instructions provide for grant of ex-gratia lump-sum compensation to the families of the defence services personnel who die in harness in the performance of their bona-fide official duties and since the husband of the petitioner was performing his duties under trying circumstances and was exposed to the vagaries of nature. Merely because he was not killed in action would not disentitle the petitioner the grant of ex-gratia compensation. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in LPA No. 575 of 2011 titled as Kamlesh vs. Union of India and others, decided on 07.07.2011. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that as per the instructions dated 30.09.1999 issued by the Government of Haryana, petitioner is entitled to ex-gratia grant/compensation for an amount of Rs. 10 lacs from the Government of Haryana as the husband of the petitioner had died during operation duties on the border and had died in harness in performance of his bona-fide official duties. He has further placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Santosh vs. Union of India and others,2010 1 RSJ 644. He, accordingly, prays that the present writ petition be allowed by quashing the impugned order dated 06.10.2009 (Annexure P-3) with further prayer for issuance a direction to the respondents to release the ex-gratia payment, which she is entitled to in the light of the instructions dated 22.09.1998 (Annexure P-5) from the Union of India and instructions dated 30.09.1999 (Annexure P-6) from the Government of Haryana.