MANJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure P-9) whereby, the petitioner's claim for ex-gratia amount on account of the death of her husband as an operational casualty has been denied by respondent no. 5 on the ground that he had been retained in service despite his disability and the individual died on 30.10.2014. The death is stated to be after a gap of 18 years on account of the following reasons:-

(2.) The other reason which prevailed with the said respondent to deny the benefit was that as far as disability is concerned, since the individual was retained in service, he was not entitled under the disability clause as well and, therefore, the case not being covered under the existing Policy of the Government, the claim for ex gratia was denied.

(3.) The legal right on the basis of which the petitioner seeks ex-gratia is the policy dated 31.01.2014 and 25.08.2014 (Annexure P-6 and P-7) framed by the State Government. The said policy covers all Central Para Military Forces (CPMF) who are killed in operational areas/terrorist activities who belong to the State of Haryana. Thus, the ambit as such of the instructions would cover BSF, ITBP, CISF, Home Guard, Assam Rifle, Rapid Action Force etc. The petitioner's husband, being from the BSF, stands covered to that extent. The amount of ex-gratia was fixed at Rs.2.50 lakhs under the said Policy and the eligibility for the deceased/disabled was that in case of death due to war action against militant, terrorists, extremists or during border skirmishes, the beneficiaries would be entitled for the ex gratia. Thus, the whole purpose of the policy as such is to recognize the bravery and the martydom achieved by the personnel of the uniformed Forces. This aspect seems to have been lost sight off by respondents no. 4 and 5 while deciding the claim of the petitioner. The relevant part reads thus:-