NARINDER PAL KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition under Articles 226227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for directing respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to grant all the relief such as ex- gratia grant, family pension, subsistence allowance on account of the killing of Surinder Kaur -mother of the petitioner on 17/2/1990 by unknown terrorist.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to the murder of the mother of the petitioner by the terrorists on 17/2/1990, a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Senior Superintendent of Police and an FIR No.44 dtd. 17/2/1990 under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC and Sec. 25 of the Arms Act and under Ss. 345 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activity (Prevention) Act (for short 'TADA) was registered. The compensation sought in terms of the policy instruction dtd. 10/5/1990 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Director -cum- Joint Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Department of Relief and Resettlement and the subsequent clarifications dtd. 30/9/1992 (Annexure P-6), 7/12/1998 (Annexure P-7) and 3/7/2001 (Annexure P-8 and the review of the policy by the Government of Punjab, Department of Revenue, Rehabilitation and Disaster management dtd. 6/3/2006 (Annexure P-9) for implementation of Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that the petitioner at the time of filing the petition was 65 years of age and her mother was murdered in the year 1990 on the basis of which, FIR was registered. He further submits that the petitioner being a married daughter does not fall in the eligible criteria framed in above referred policies instructions framed by the State of Punjab. He refers to Clause 2 of Notification dtd. 10/5/1990 (Annexure P-5) and submits that such relief can only be granted to the widow, orphan children, whose earning membersbread winner of the family has died in the terrorists activities. Apart from it, State counsel also submits that there is a delay of more than 28 years for claiming the relief and therefore, the same is hit by delay and laches. He also submits that application dtd. 17/2/2010 (Annexure P-3) was submitted by the father of the petitioner, which again would not give any cause of action to the petitioner to claim such relief being a married daughter even at the time of murder of her mother.