ISHAR KAUR Vs. UOI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a widow of late Naik Nidhan Singh who had been killed by mob protesting the assassination of Prime Minister of India in the year 1984. Since the enforcement of the legal rights has been claimed by the petitioner being a resident of Punjab against the State, this writ petition is maintainable against all the respondents.

(2.) Through instant petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner (Revenue Branch) District Ramgarh (Jharkhand) to release the compensation of sum of Rs. 3.50 lacs and the enhanced amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date it was allowed till actual realization. The husband of the petitioner was combatant member of Indian Army and was enrolled in the Indian Army on Feb. 9, 197 In the year 1984, said Nidhan Singh was posted in the strength of 21 Punjab Regiment and was on temporary duty to Punjab Regimental Centre, Ramgarh Cantt., and was to report to Punjab Regimental Centre on Nov. 1, 1984. He was travelling in train No.184 down Kalka Ranchi Express on Oct. 31, 1984. There were wide spread riots in the country. The military compartment of the above said train was attacked by mob on Nov. 1, 1984 at about 9.30 hours at Garwa Road Railway Station within the territorial jurisdiction of District Ramgarh. Some of the army personnel who were travelling in the train were killed. Again at about 100 hours, on the same day, when train was passing through thick jungle, the train was stopped by the mob and Nidhan Singh was pulled out from the compartment, being Sikh person, and was killed. He was declared missing by the Army authorities. Later on, the Army authority conducted the inquiry regarding the number of army personel having been killed by the mob in the entire country. The name of Nidhan Singh was also listed amongst the list of killed persons at Sr. No.11 submitted to respondents No.1 and The local police authorities had registered FIR to that effect in District Ramgarh. The Army authorities had issued and submitted list to respondents No.1 and After receiving the inquiry report from the Defence Ministry, respondent No.2 issued a letter to respondent No.3, Directorate, Sainik Welfare, Punjab, whereby the petitioner was asked to submit the claim before the office of respondent No.2 for receiving the compensation amount vide letter dated April 9, 2010, annexure P-3. Respondent No.2 also published a general notice annexure P- 4 dated March 22, 2010 whereby the effected persons were required to submit their claim on or before March 27, 2010. The petitioner submitted all the requisite documents asked for by the office of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 submitted the claim of the petitioner to respondent No. Respondent No.2 considered the claim of the petitioner and asked the petitioner to appear before its office for getting the compensation amount vide letter dated April 20, 2010. Respondent No. 3 vide its letter dated April 21, 2010, annexure P-5 directed the petitioner to appear in the office of respondent No. Petitioner along with her son Manjit Singh reported in the office of respondent No.2 and made representation on June 8, 2010 seeking compensation amount and stayed for three days in District Head Quarter, Ramgarh for getting the compensation amount but the amount was not released. The petitioner returned to District Patiala. In the above said background, the petitioner has sought a direction to release compensation to the tune of Rs. 3.50 lacs and the amount enhanced thereafter along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date it was allotted till actual realization of the payment.

(3.) On notice having been issued to the respondents, separate replies have been filed. Respondent No.3 has claimed that it has got no concern with the release of compensation to the petitioner but admitted that no ex-gratia amount was paid to the petitioner from the State Government. On behalf of respondent No.2, a reply has been filed by the Executive Magistrate, Ramgarh, pleading that no fund was allotted either by the Central Government or the State Government to respondent No.2 but only status was being asked by the State Government. The fact that husband of the petitioner while travelling in the train was attacked by the mob and was killed being a Sikh person was not denied but it has been vaguely pleaded that no authenticated report regarding army men killed in 1984 riots in Bhoor Kanda was available. It is admitted that Manjit Singh, legal heir and son of late Naik Nidhan Singh had come to Ramgarh and submitted a petition dated June 8, 2014 along with some papers and requested to make payment of compensation. It is pleaded that no compensation was paid for want of evidence and non-receipt of record of Superintendent of Police, Government Railway Police, Dhanbad. It is pleaded in the reply that after filing of the present writ petition, the entire case report was called for and on examination of the relevant record, it was found that respondent No.2 had submitted a detailed report to the Under Secretary, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, vide letter dated June 12, 2010 enumerating the facts that case record of Army pertaining to late Naik Nidhan Singh was received from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh for payment of compensation but in fact no fund was ever allotted as rehabilitation package from Government in respect of late Naik Nidhan Singh and no payment was made for want of evidence. It is assured in the written statement that on receipt of evidence further action can be taken. As the name of Nidhan Singh was not found mentioned in the police case diary of Railway Police No. 38/54, dated Nov. 1, 1984, under Sec. 147, 148, 149, 302 of IPC, the death of said Army personnel could not be established in Dhanbad Railway Police jurisdiction as per the report submitted by Government Railway Police.