PUSHPA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this court seeking for review of the respondent/State's decision to deny her claim for ex-gratia payment announced by the Haryana Government through its instructions dated 20.9.1999 for the families of defence forces, who died in any action or warlike engagement, which is specifically notified by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. The petitioner's husband died along with 17 other on 28.12.2001 at Laungewala in a mine accident while "harbouring and arming" and reported as battle casualty to the Indian army (AGORG) by Indian Army (ADP Centre). The casualty report forwarded to Secretary Zila Sainik Board, Ambala, also reports the death as a battle casualty who died "in mine blast in OP Parakram on 28.12.2001 in Laungewala sector". When a claim was made, the State referred to its own scheme to decline the plea and cited the persons who are not eligible under the scheme, as stipulated in terms of eligibility in Annexure B attached to the notification. The State counsel would refer to me the particularly clause which would apply to the petitioner, which reads as under:-

(2.) I have no difficulty in accepting the situation that if the scheme is made for the benefits under the State scheme, the petitioner shall show her case as falling within the requirements of the scheme. In this case, the petitioner's reliance is on how the army treated the case of death of the petitioner's husband and 17 others and characterized the same as a battle casualty to claim the benefit. It is not taken to be merely an accident but on the other hand, it is stated to be, while carrying out a particular army operation called' OP Parakram'. Even the expression a mine accident while harboring and arming, I would understand to be a situation of a person coming by fatality, while undertaking the arduous duties of national security. It is not merely recorded as some causalities on an army personnel but it is recorded as a casualty battle. The expression 'battle' must therefore, be understood as also a person preparing for a battle and coming by a fatal accident. The clause which the State would refer to, which we have already extracted, must be read by applying ejusdem generis principle. The first clause of exclusion would be a case of natural death by a person who is engaged in the army even if he is in battle front. The second situation is accidental death and explains some situation like MT accident, air crashes or handling of explosion. If a person comes by death while handling an explosion which was a mere accident, I would understand that the nature of accident which is perceived as the nature of handling explosion that did not involve any battle. In this case, the cause of death has been referred to as a casualty battle. This court had an occasion to deal with the situation of a personnel dying as a result of mechanical transport in operational area in Major Arvind Kumar Suhag v. State of Haryana and others, 2010 4 SCT 395This court has held as under:-

(3.) I will apply the same reasoning what was stated in the said case and would take the assessment made by the army itself to dictate the nature of casualty as resultant to a battle in a warlike situation while carrying out operation of army and hence qualified for the petitioner's claim. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed as prayed for. The amount which is granted under the policy shall be disbursed with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date when the claim was decided on 17.9.2002 till the date of payment, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.