Himachal Pradesh High Court
Piar Kaur (Deceased) Through Lrs vs The Union Of India And Others on 26 June, 2015
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
CWP No. 10377 of 2011-H. Date of decision: 26.06.2015.
Piar Kaur (deceased) through LRs.
Harbans Singh and others. .....Petitioner s.
Versus The Union of India and others .....Respondents.
Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioners : Mr.B.C.Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr.Ashok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.1.
Mr.Virender Kumar Verma, Ms.Meenakshi Sharma and Mr.Rupinder Singh, Additional Advocate Generals with Ms.Parul Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.3.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) .
The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the husband of the original petitioner Shri Ranjit Singh was employed as Foreman (Special) in Salal Hydro Electric Project, Jyotipuram in State of Jammu and Kashmir. He was killed in communal riots which took place in wake of the assassination of the then Prime Minister in the year 1984. The family of the original petitioner at that time was paid a grant of `20,000/. On 24.08.2005, the original petitioner represented to the Prime Minister to grant her ex-gratia, pension and other payments Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:27:19 :::HCHP 2 and again after receipt of the report of the Nanavati Commission, the petitioner vide letter dated 25.02.2006 requested for financial .
assistance.
2. The petitioner received a letter dated 23.04.2006 from the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, informing her that some amount had been received by him from the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, J&K and thereafter financial assistance of `3,50,000/- was given to the original petitioner.
3. Pursuant to Justice Nanavati Commission Inquiry Report which had been constituted by the Central Government to look into the 1984 riots, the Government of India issued a circular on 16.01.2006 on the subject of sanction of rehabilitation package to provide relief to the victims of 1984 riots. This communication was addressed to various affected States primarily in North India. The said circular conveyed the decision of the Government to sanction ex-gratia amount and other assistance to the victims of 1984 riots. Twelve different kinds of ex-
gratia payments and other assistance were provided in the said circular.
Clauses (i) and (xi) of the first paragraph is relevant for the purpose of the present petition and the same reads as follows:-
"(i) Ex-gratia amount @ Rs. 3.5 lakh would be paid in each case of death during the riots. This will be in addi tion to the amount already paid by the respective State Governments;
(xi) The State Government may grant pension to all the widows and old aged parents of those who were killed in the 1984 riots at the uniform rate of Rs.2500/- per month for the whole life from a prospective date. Wives of those who have suffered disability of 70% or more and those who are missing ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:27:19 :::HCHP 3 since 1984 may also be provided pension at the same rate;"
.
4. Insofar as the grant of ex-gratia amount at the rate of `3.50 lacs is concerned, as observed earlier, the same already stands awarded in favour of the petitioner. But, the original petitioner was not paid any amount in terms of Clause (xi) of the circular which constrained her to file the present writ petition claiming therein the following reliefs:-r "(a) That the respondents may be directed to produce the entire record of this case for the perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
(b) That the appropriate orders and directions may be issued to the respondents for settlement and payment of family pension to her with effect from 1.11.1984, when her husband was killed in riots alongwith all other benefits in accordance with the rehabilitation package Annexure P-5, P-6 and in this regards time bound directions be issued.
(c) That the respondent No.3 may be issued directions to give benefit of Pension to her under the Scheme prescribed for Widow in the State of Himachal Pradesh."
5. In reply to the petition, the respondent No.1 submitted that the pension was to be granted by the State Government in whose territorial limits the death had occurred and since the ex-gratia of `3.70 lacs for the death had been paid by the government of Jammu and Kashmir, the pension is also to be granted by them.
6. On 29.11.2012, this Court passed the following order:-
"Petitioner's husband Sh. Ranjit Singh was employed as a Foreman (Special) in Salal Hydro Electric Project, Jyotipuram ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:27:19 :::HCHP 4 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Unfortunately Sh. Ranjit Singh fell victim to the riots of the year 1984. The Government .
of India announced rehabilitation package in terms of which monetary relief and benefits were to be disbursed to the legal heirs of the riot victims.
2 Mr.G.D.Verma, learned Sr. Counsel has handed over copy of order dated 8.11.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Reasi, Jammu & Kashmir, in terms of which the authorities have been directed to disburse payment of "Life Time Pension" in favour of the petitioner @ ` 2500/- per month w.e.f. 1.3.2012. Copies of the same have also been handed over to the learned opposite counsel.
3. The entitlement of the petitioner to the relief under the rehabilitation scheme is not in dispute. It is not clear as to why petitioner has not been disbursed the benefits w.e.f. 1.11.1984 when her husband was killed in the riots. Petitioner has been pursing her case before different authorities for a considerable period of time. She has been running from pillar to post. The benefits under the rehabilitation scheme were to be accorded only to lessen the misery, suffering and assuage feelings of the families of the victims who in fact became victims on account of death of a family member.
4. Notice in the petition was issued to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Unfortunately none has entered appearance on their behalf. Under these circumstances, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh is directed to directly take up the matter with the Chief Secretary to the Government of Jammu & Kashmir so that necessary remedial measure can be taken at the earliest with the intervention of all the authorities. One cannot loose sight of the fact that presently petitioner is 84 years of age. Also the Secretary (Home Affairs), Union of India is directed to take up the matter with the Chief Secretary to the Government of Jammu & Kashmir.
5. Petitioner shall take steps for the fresh service of respondent No.2. Notice be issued to the said respondent returnable for 3rd January, 2013. However, it shall be open for the petitioner to directly approach the authorities including the Chief Secretary, Go vernment of Jammu & Kashmir, annexing ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:27:19 :::HCHP 5 copy of this order, as also the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Reasi, Jammu & Kashmir.
.
6. Consequential action positively be taken within a period of four weeks from today. List on 3 rd January, 2013.
Copy dasti."
7. The petition thereafter was listed on 21.06.2013 and following orders came to be passed:-
"CMP No.3651 of 2013The petitioner has been paid pension after intervention of the Court vide order No.270-GAD of 2012, dated 5.3.2012. The petitioner has been called upon by the District Treasury Officer, Reasi, to appear before him for physical verification. The petitioner is a widow. It will be difficult for her to go to Reasi (J & K).
Consequently, in the interest of justice, physical verification is ordered to be carried out by the S.D.M. Nalagarh, District Solan, in order to implement the pension order dated 5.3.2012. The petitioner shall appear before the S.D.M. Nalagarh, on 24.6.2013. The S.D.M. Nalagarh, after physical verification, shall send the same to the District Treasury Officer, Reasi, in a sealed cover. Thereafter, the pension shall be remitted in the saving bank account of the petitioner/applicant as per details given in para 6 of the application. The process of remitting the pension shall be completed within a further period of one month. It is made clear by way of abundant precaution, the same procedure will be followed as and when the petitioner's verification is required for the purpose of release of the pension by the S.D.M. Copy dasti."
8. In compliance to the aforesaid orders, the deceased petitioner was paid a sum of `57,500/- towards monthly pension for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014, but she unfortunately died on 09.03.2014.
9. Now, therefore, the only question which survives for consideration is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the arrears of pension.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:27:19 :::HCHP 6I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.
.
10. This Court cannot ignore the fact that in wake of the riots that broke out in the State of Punjab and elsewhere, the families fled from the riot affected areas to either Punjab or some other State and settled down in a later State. These families required support as the rehabilitation in most of the cases in the later State was totally unplanned because these people had to flee for their lives without their belongings and without any avocation or source of livelihood. Such families had to restart their lives in the relocated State to find their feet that too find jobs, avocation, fend for themselves and their children, meet the education expenses, adapt themselves to the new environment which in most of the cases was not even conducive or sensitive to the needs and plight. Such families virtually became refugees in their own country and it is high time that the respondents understand their plight.
11. Admittedly, the husband of the original petitioner had died during the riots and that is why the respondents have paid an amount of `3.50 lacs as ex-gratia as provided in Clause (i) of the first paragraph of the circular dated 16.01.2006. It is also not in dispute that the respondents themselves have already paid a sum of `57,500/- towards monthly pension of the original petitioner. Once the respondents have acknowledged the case of the petitioners to be covered under the circular dated 16.01.2006, there is no reason or justification available for the respondents for withholding the arrears of pension w.e.f. the date of issuance of circular i.e. 16.01.2006 upto the date of death of the original petitioner i.e. 09.03.2014 which as per the calculation of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:27:19 :::HCHP 7 petitioners works out to `1,87,500/-. This is all the more so when the respondents have not only acknowledged their liability but have further .
acted upon the circular dated 16.01.2006 by paying `3,50,000/- as ex-
gratia and have further paid monthly pension for the years 2012 to 2014 and paid a sum of `57,500/- to the original petitioner.
12. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the outstanding amount of `1,87,500/-
to the petitioners r within a period of six weeks, failing which the petitioners in addition to the aforesaid amount shall also be entitled to 9% interest on the aforesaid amount that too from the date(s) the same fell due.
13. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
June 26, 2015. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
(krt) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:27:19 :::HCHP