Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmej Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 18 March, 2014
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Arun Palli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.925 of 2000 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 18.03.2014
Gurmej Kaur
.....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present: Mr. Padam Kant Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Harsimran S. Sethi, Addl. Advocate General,
Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3
Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for respondent No.4
..
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE: (Oral) CM-3280-2014:
Leave is granted to place on record the affidavit of respondent No.4 and the application is allowed.
CWP-925-2000:
The son of the petitioner Sarj Singh Sandhu was a soldier in the Indian Army who died in the Kargil conflict on 16.5.1999. It is the case of the petitioner that she is aged about 54 years (now would be about 58 years) and is a widow who had three sons out of which only one is alive. She alleges that the son, who is alive, is married and lives separately without supporting her.
The deceased soldier is stated to have come on leave from Army on 14.3.1999 and was married to respondent No.4, who was aged Chand Parkash 2014.03.19 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-925-2000 -2- 20/21 years. He had to join duty within a week of his marriage and unfortunately was martyred in the Kargil war. The respondent No.4 is stated to have gone to her parental house after the Bhog ceremony.
It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2, the Directorate of Sainik Welfare, in order to rehabilitate the family members of the defence forces who sacrificed their lives or were disabled during the Kargil conflict, set up a relief fund which included grant of an ex- gratia amount of `2 lacs and a plot at reserve price less `5 lacs as also a job to the legal heirs of the soldiers who were martyred in the conflict. The petitioner and respondent No.4 are stated to have jointly applied for the same. The ex-gratia payment was divided between petitioner and respondent No.4 in equal proportion of `1 lac each. They are also stated to have jointly applied for the grant of `5 lacs for construction of residence, but this benefit is stated to have been given exclusively to the respondent No.4. The reason for the same was stated to be the relevant Rule 3(b) which stipulated priority between the legal heirs and the widowed spouse comes in a category before the dependent parents and one category takes to the exclusion of the other.
It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking to assail the relevant clause and for disbursement to her of an amount of `2.5 lacs.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the case.
The relevant rules are "Rules for Administration/Management of Punjab War Heroes Families Relief Fund" published in a gazette on 26.6.1999 by the Punjab Government. The objectives of the fund are Chand Parkash 2014.03.19 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-925-2000 -3- provided in Clause-3. Clause (a) thereof deals with equal distribution between the widowed spouse and children on one hand and the dependant parents on the other, which has since been complied with.
Clause (b) refers to payment of `5 lacs on the reserve price of one plot in any estate of the Punjab Urban Authority or Improvement Trust and the remainder of the reserve price is to be paid by beneficiary or `5 lacs in lieu of the plot at reserve price. The entitlement is stated to be in order of priority where the widowed spouse alone is at serial number one. The relevant portion of the Clause reads as under:
"(b) For paying Rs.5 lac on the reserve price of one plot in any estate of the Punjab Urban Authority or Improvement Trust, the remainder of the reserve price to be paid by beneficiary or Rs.5 lac in lieu of the plot at reserve price.
The entitlement for this relief will be in the following order of priority:-
1. Widowed spouse
2. Children
3. Dependent Parents
4. Brothers, Sisters, Widowed daughter-in-law or her children in equal shares."
An amendment to the aforesaid notification was issued on 10.8.1999 including the sub-rule in question, but only dealing with the situation as under:-
"In the case of death or disability between 75% to 100%, a grant of Rs.5 Lac out of Punjab War Heroes Families Relief Fund shall be given for the construction of a house or a residential plot available in any of the colonies set up by PUDA shall be allotted at reserve price and an amount of Rs.5 Lac shall be paid out of Punjab War Heroes Families Relief Fund as price of the plot, the remaining amount of reserve price shall be paid by the allottee him/herself.
The grant for residential house shall be given in the following order of priority:-
(a) Widow Chand Parkash 2014.03.19 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-925-2000 -4- (b) Children (c) Dependent parents (d) Brothers/Sisters."
On 18.7.2013, we noticed both the stands of the petitioner that the amount ought to have been released in equal proportion as also the stand of the learned counsel for the State of Punjab that the amount so released was not a matter of inheritance but was a grant under the relief fund which was governed by the notification whereby grant was to be given for construction of a house or on allotment of a residential plot in the order of priority. Since the petitioner was unrepresented, we issued notice to her (inadvertently the presence of the counsel for respondent No.4 has been marked as that for the petitioner).
On 26.8.2013, we recorded our prima facie view that the sum of `5 lacs appears to have been released only to respondent No.4 apparently ignoring the amendment because it had to be put to use for a house. We called upon for the personal appearance of respondent No.4 and wanted her stand on record as to what had been done by her with the amount of `5 lacs received. The affidavit today brought on record of respondent No.4 shows that from the receipt of `5 lacs she has purchased a constructed house from one Jaswant Singh for a consideration of `4.5 lacs and paid stamp-duty charges of `36,000/- vide a sale deed dated 11.8.2007 where she is residing. Her name is also accordingly recorded in the House Tax Register of Municipal Committee, Tarn Taran. She has also got remarried in 2006. She has further stated in this affidavit that she was and has always been willing to settle the matter with the petitioner so long as she is granted her share in the Chand Parkash 2014.03.19 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-925-2000 -5- estate of her husband. The latter part of the affidavit is in pursuance to our query raised on the last date of hearing on 17.2.2014.
On perusal of the Scheme, we find that there is no infirmity in the same so as to call for any interference.
Learned counsel for the State has rightly pointed out that the policy in the form of a grant has to be read as a whole and does not form a part of the estate of the deceased which would follow the natural line of succession. In this behalf, it has been pointed out that there are two parts of the ex-gratia grant - the first one is to be shared equally between widowed spouse and children on one hand and the dependent parents on the other. The second part of the grant is for payment of `5 lacs on the reserve price of one plot in any estate of Punjab Urban Authority or Improvement Trust while the remaining price would be paid by the beneficiary. However, option was of `5 lacs to be received in lieu of the plot at the reserve price. This policy was amended on 10.8.1999 which provided for the grant of `5 lacs for the construction of a house or a residential plot in any of the colonies set up by PUDA to be allotted at reserve price and, in case of plot, the remaining amount of reserve price is to be paid by the allottee himself/herself. The order of priority remains the same. This has to be read with the unamended part of the policy where Clause-10 deals with financial powers and clause (a) thereof deals with the entitlement to relief in case of death and disability. Here, the reference is to a plot at reserve price less `5 lacs or `5 lacs and a job. It has, thus, been rightly pointed out that the option was always available to give a sum of `5 lacs along with a job to respondent No.4, who was accordingly given `5 lacs and a job.
Chand Parkash 2014.03.19 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-925-2000 -6-
The aforesaid rule was also amended vide notification dated 10.8.1999 where the aspect of `5 lacs in lieu of a house does not appear, but then the ex-gratia grant has to be given in the same order of priority as in case of a residential house given under the rules. In such a situation, the petitioner would actually be worse off because she may not be entitled under the amended rules but, undoubtedly, when the amount of `2 lacs was disbursed she was entitled and, thus, both of them got the amount equally.
In our view, the dispute is being dragged on unnecessarily for the reason that respondent No.4 is not disputing that she is willing to even share the grant received from the State Government with the petitioner equally, even though the rules say to the contrary. As far as challenge to the rules is concerned, we find nothing illegal or improper in the same as a widow would have a life to live which is normally much longer than the parents. Thus, some benefits have been extended to the parents while others have been extended to the widow and the benefits of the widow are of a larger amount. The fact that the widow has got remarried will not, in any manner, dilute the amount which has been paid to her as this would amount to a discouragement for remarriage of the widow. The policy read as a whole subserves the purpose for which it has been formulated.
Now coming to the lis between the petitioner and the respondent No.4, on our query, we are informed that respondent No.4 has filed a civil suit to claim her share in the estate of her husband which is being resisted by the petitioner. This is also apparent from the fact that when we posed this query to learned counsel for the petitioner, his Chand Parkash 2014.03.19 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-925-2000 -7- submission was that the ex-gratia grant should be shared equally while respondent No.4 should recover her share in her husband's property in the process of litigation - a course of action completely unacceptable to us. On one hand, respondent No.4 is making a sacrifice out of the ex- gratia payment for a settlement and, on the other hand, she cannot be compelled to litigate for due share which would devolve on her by succession.
If the petitioner wants to have an overall settlement with respondent No.4, then she must give the share which devolves on respondent No.4 by succession and respondent No.4 has already offered that she is willing to give 50% of the amount received of `5 lacs, even though as per rules the whole amount has to devolve on her.
We may add here that the petitioner is saying nothing about the right of her maintenance qua her son, who is alive, and it appears that she is an uneducated lady who has affixed her thumb-impression on the pleadings. Whether all that is being agitated by the petitioner or someone behind her cannot be found out in the present proceedings but, suffice to say, the channel of mutual settlement is very much open.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, though we find no merit in the petition, we are not averse to relegating the litigating parties to the process of mediation to resolve the dispute whereby both the sum of `5 lacs received by respondent No.4 and the estate of the deceased son of the petitioner (husband of respondent No.4) are shared in equal proportion, as volunteered by respondent No.4. Chand Parkash 2014.03.19 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-925-2000 -8-
The petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
Let the petitioner and the respondent No.4 appear before the District Mediation Centre at Ferozepur on 22nd April, 2014 at 11.00 A.M. and the Mediator will endeavour to settle the dispute and submit a report to this Court at least three days before the next date of hearing.
List for compliance/report of the Mediator on 16.05.2014.
( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL )
CHIEF JUSTICE
18.03.2014 ( ARUN PALLI)
parkash* JUDGE
Whether reportable: YES/NO
Chand Parkash
2014.03.19 16:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document