JASPAL KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by widow of one Jaswant Singh who died at the hands of terrorist, for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing respondents No. 1 to 3 , I.e. State of Punjab, to pay ex -gratia amount of Rs. One lac in pursuance of instruction issued by the Punjab Government on 20.1.1992, with a further prayer that respondent No. 4, i.e. Punjab National Bank, with whom Jaswant Singh was an employee, be directed to pay all service benefits to the petitioners, being widow of Jaswant Singh.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that on 15.2.1971, Jaswant Singh, husband of the petitioner, was appointed as Clerk in the Punjab Nation Bank, Samrala (hereinafter referred to as the bank). A criminal case was registered against Jas -want Singh under Sections 467, 471, 409,420 and 477A, I.P.C He was challenged and ultimately, on 29.10.87, was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for various terms, by the Judicial Magistrate, Samrala. In appeal, the order of the Judicial Magistrate was set aside while giving benefit of doubt to Jaswant Singh, on 16.9.1991, an F.l.R was got registered by Smt. Bachan Kaur, i.e. mother of Jaswant Singh, under Sections 302/148/149, IPC, read with Sections 25,27,54 and 59 of Arms Act, and Sections 3,4 and 5 of T.A.D.A. Act. is the said F.I.R., she stated that while her son, Balkar Singh, was working as Police Inspector at Ropar, some of the terrorists who were deadly against him, came to her residence on 16.9.1991 in a vehicle at about 8.30 P.M. and stopped their vehicle in front of their house and some of the armed persons entered into her house. One of the terrorists dressed in Khakhi uniform, directed her son, Jagroop Singh to go out of the house, and thereafter, alongwith her son, Jagroop Singh, her other three sons namely Jaswant Singh, Balwant Singh and Dilbagh Singh and also her two grandsons were shot dead. It has further been stated that the Government of Punjab, Deptt. of Personnel and Admn. Reforms has issued instructions on 20.1.1992 to all the Heads of Departments in the State of Punjab, regarding financial assistance to the members of Government employee killed by terrorists. Under instructions dated 9.7.1990, payment of special ex -gratia grant upto Rs. 50,000/ - could be given to the families of deceased government employees, including Local. Government employees, killed by terrorist action. Petitioner has alleged that she being widow of Jaswant Singh, approached Sub Divisional Officer (C), Samrala for release of ex -gratia grant of Rs. one lac on the ground that her husband, Jaswant Singh and her son, Jaswinder Singh, have been killed by terrorists and, thus, she be given ex -gratia grant in view of Govt. instructions issued from time to time. The Sub -Divisional Officer (C), Samrala, wrote a letter dated 24.2.92 to the Manager of the Bank, mentioning therein that the husband of the petitioner was killed by terrorists on 16.9.1991 and as such, petitioner be given ex -gratia grant Worth Rs. one lac in the light of instructions No. 18/50/90/ Rs. I. dated 20.1.1992. The General Manager of the Bank was further informed that Government has decided that in future, the ex -gratia grant would be paid by the appointing Authority. In the light of aforesaid Govt. instructions, the S.D.O. requested the Manager of the Bank to release ex -gratia amount of Rs. one lac to the petitioner within a period of 10 days. Copy of this letter has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P -4. Petitioner has further alleged that service benefits to which her husband, Jaswant Singh, was entitled to, have not been paid to her. In the petition, she has admitted that special ex -gratia grant of Rs. 50,000/ - each has already been made to the families of Jaswinder Singh, Jagroop Singh, Dilbagh Singh, Sarbjit Singh and Balwant Singh, who were killed alongwith Jaswant Singh, but so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, special ex -gratia grant of Rs. one lac has neither been paid by the State Government nor by the bank i.e. employer of petitioner's husband.

(3.) MR . Gurnam Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner, has contended that petitioner is entitled to another sum of Rs. one lac as ex -gratia grant. As regard the amount of Rs. two lacs which has been paid to the petitioner by the Bank, he contended that this amount has not been paid under the instructions providing for ex -gratia grant to the employees who are killed in robbery/dacoity incidents, but has been paid, because the husband of the petitioner, like any other employee, was a member of the Employees' Welfare Scheme.