CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has made it clear that if a soldier from Haryana dies in the line of duty, his family cannot be denied ex gratia benefits as per state’s policy on the grounds of some subsequent changes in the policy.
The court has passed these orders while directing the state’s sainik welfare department to release ex gratia to the family of an army soldier who had died in Oct 2000 while returning from Gorichen summit to camp in Arunachal Pradesh during duty.
As per the state’s instructions dated Sept 30, 1999, the family was entitled to the ex gratia of Rs 10 lakh, as the soldier had died in the line of duty. Authorities in Haryana had declined the same, citing a subsequent memo dated Nov 7, 2001.
HC has held that such benefits cannot be denied retrospectively, under the garb of being a clarificatory procedural requirement.
Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj has passed these orders while allowing a petition filed by Jagroshini Devi, a resident of Gurgaon district in Haryana, challenging the order dated March 24, 2017, passed by the secretary, Rajya Sainik Board, Haryana, declining her claim for grant of ex gratia.
Petitioner’s husband Naik Bhagirath, who was serving in 8 Maratha Light Infantry died on Oct 23, 2000, while returning from Gorichen summit to camp. His death was ordered to be treated as a battle casualty in ‘Operation Falcon’ and attributable to military service in the field in accordance with the court of inquiry proceedings investigating the circumstances under which a soldier loses his life. Army had issued a certificate regarding cause of death, certifying that Bhagirath was killed in action.
The Army had released her all kinds of benefits granted to a battle causality. However, Haryana govt refused to grant her an ex gratia of Rs 10 lakh as per its policy through which an amount is given to soldiers who die in the line of duty. Haryana had taken the stand that the benefits are granted for the sacrifice of war heroes as per Haryana govt’s instructions Sept 30, 1999, and clarification dated Nov 7, 2001. The case of the husband of the petitioner is not covered under Haryana policy as his death has occurred due to fall from the Gorichen peak at Arunachal Pradesh while returning from Summit to Camp II as a member of Gorichen mountaineering expedition team only, and not in a military operation
Challenging the state’s move, the counsel for the petitioner informed the HC that as per the initial policy for ex gratia assistance notified by the state on Sept 30, 1999, which was in force as on Oct 23, 2000, when Bhagirath died in performance of his bona fide operational duty, he was entitled to financial assistance. An amendment was subsequently carried out in a memo dated Nov 7, 2001, even though the same is clarificatory. “The said explanation rather excludes all other types of casualties except battle casualties and battle accidents from the policy of Sept 30, 1999. Such a policy/decision cannot be labelled as a clarificatory memo and is rather a substantive amendment which can be enforced only prospectively. The state has denied the benefits to the petitioner by placing reliance on subsequent policy,” the counsel had submitted.
After hearing the parties, HC held that the decision to decline ex gratia under instructions dated Sept 30, 1999, by placing reliance on subsequent memo dated Nov 7, 2001, was misplaced and the said clarification was not applicable to incidents that had already taken place prior to issuance of the said instructions by Haryana govt. “The order passed by the Haryana government suffers from an illegality and applies substantive amendment retrospectively, under the garb of being a clarificatory procedural requirement. Since the death of the petitioner’s husband took place on October 23, 2000, in a bona fide operation being undertaken by the deceased,” observed the court while directing the authorities to release all the benefits to the widow within three months.
The court has passed these orders while directing the state’s sainik welfare department to release ex gratia to the family of an army soldier who had died in Oct 2000 while returning from Gorichen summit to camp in Arunachal Pradesh during duty.
As per the state’s instructions dated Sept 30, 1999, the family was entitled to the ex gratia of Rs 10 lakh, as the soldier had died in the line of duty. Authorities in Haryana had declined the same, citing a subsequent memo dated Nov 7, 2001.
HC has held that such benefits cannot be denied retrospectively, under the garb of being a clarificatory procedural requirement.
Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj has passed these orders while allowing a petition filed by Jagroshini Devi, a resident of Gurgaon district in Haryana, challenging the order dated March 24, 2017, passed by the secretary, Rajya Sainik Board, Haryana, declining her claim for grant of ex gratia.
Petitioner’s husband Naik Bhagirath, who was serving in 8 Maratha Light Infantry died on Oct 23, 2000, while returning from Gorichen summit to camp. His death was ordered to be treated as a battle casualty in ‘Operation Falcon’ and attributable to military service in the field in accordance with the court of inquiry proceedings investigating the circumstances under which a soldier loses his life. Army had issued a certificate regarding cause of death, certifying that Bhagirath was killed in action.
The Army had released her all kinds of benefits granted to a battle causality. However, Haryana govt refused to grant her an ex gratia of Rs 10 lakh as per its policy through which an amount is given to soldiers who die in the line of duty. Haryana had taken the stand that the benefits are granted for the sacrifice of war heroes as per Haryana govt’s instructions Sept 30, 1999, and clarification dated Nov 7, 2001. The case of the husband of the petitioner is not covered under Haryana policy as his death has occurred due to fall from the Gorichen peak at Arunachal Pradesh while returning from Summit to Camp II as a member of Gorichen mountaineering expedition team only, and not in a military operation
Challenging the state’s move, the counsel for the petitioner informed the HC that as per the initial policy for ex gratia assistance notified by the state on Sept 30, 1999, which was in force as on Oct 23, 2000, when Bhagirath died in performance of his bona fide operational duty, he was entitled to financial assistance. An amendment was subsequently carried out in a memo dated Nov 7, 2001, even though the same is clarificatory. “The said explanation rather excludes all other types of casualties except battle casualties and battle accidents from the policy of Sept 30, 1999. Such a policy/decision cannot be labelled as a clarificatory memo and is rather a substantive amendment which can be enforced only prospectively. The state has denied the benefits to the petitioner by placing reliance on subsequent policy,” the counsel had submitted.
After hearing the parties, HC held that the decision to decline ex gratia under instructions dated Sept 30, 1999, by placing reliance on subsequent memo dated Nov 7, 2001, was misplaced and the said clarification was not applicable to incidents that had already taken place prior to issuance of the said instructions by Haryana govt. “The order passed by the Haryana government suffers from an illegality and applies substantive amendment retrospectively, under the garb of being a clarificatory procedural requirement. Since the death of the petitioner’s husband took place on October 23, 2000, in a bona fide operation being undertaken by the deceased,” observed the court while directing the authorities to release all the benefits to the widow within three months.
#deny #gratia #soldiers #kin #due #policy #India #News #Times #India
