Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 590 (PNJ)

Phoolawanti v. State Of Punjab

2001-05-24

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, N.K.SUD

body2001
JudgmentJudgment JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. 1. Is the action of the State of Punjab in declining to release the ex gratia ant to the petitioners on the ground that the deceased was employed with the State Bank of Patiala in conformity with the instructions dated 29/08/1995 and the law? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is a widow. Petitioner No. 2 is her minor son. Ram Narain, the husband of petitioner No. 1, was working as a Head Cashier with the State Bank of Patiala. He was posted at Khanauri, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur. On 4/06/1986, Ram Narain as well as the Gunman-Jai Singh were killed by the terrorists. F.I.R. No. 57 dated 4/06/1986 was recorded at Police Station Moonak under Sections 392/394/397, IPC. After the death, the petitioners represented to the State of Punjab for these release of the amount payable by way of ex gratia grant. Vide letter dated 24/06/1987, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-3 with the writ petition, the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, wrote to the Manager of the Bank regarding the amount given to the family of the deceased. However, the payment was not made. The petitioners represented. Even a legal notice was sent. Ultimately, vide letter dated 4/08/1998 the second respondent viz. the Bank informed petitioner No. 1 that there was no provision in the Rules for the grant of any amount. So far as the State Government is concerned, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Moonak, sent his comments on the notice. He mentioned that the Bank had paid the amounts due to the widow by way of gratuity and provident fund besides the family pension. With regard to the ex-gratia grant, he informed the Deputy Commissioner that he had to consider the matter. The long and short of the story is that no payment was made. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not releasing the payment, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition. They pray that the respondents be directed to release the amount of Rs. 1 lac along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 3. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Moonak. They pray that the respondents be directed to release the amount of Rs. 1 lac along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 3. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Moonak. It has been inter alia averred that the deceased"was neither a private citizen nor was he killed during the action against terrorists. It is submitted that he was killed when he was on duty in the bank as a Cashier and thus he is not a private citizen covered under the definition of innocent civilian". It has been further stated that"only Punjab Govt. employees are entitled to ex-gratia relief that too to be paid by their respective departments/appointing authorities.................". Relying upon the instructions issued vide letter dated 25/07/1991 it has been averred that"no ex-gratia is to be given by the Punjab Government to the dependents of the Central Govt. employees including Army personnel killed in terrorist violence in Punjab". It has been further stated that vide letter dated 9/01/1987 the applicant was informed that the petitioner is not entitled to any ex-gratia relief as the deceased was a bank employee. On these premises, the respondents maintain that the petitioners are not entitled to the grant of any relief. 4. A separate reply has been filed on behalf of the Bank. It has been averred that the benefits as admissible under the rules have been granted. However, there is no provision for the grant of any ex-gratia benefit under the rules of the Bank. Thus, no payment can be made to the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 6. The short question that arises for consideration is - Are the petitioners not entitled to the grant of the amount of Rs. 1 lac as contemplated under the instructions issued by the State Government vide letter dated 29/08/1995? 7. A perusal of the instructions shows that these were issued to lay dow the"scale of relief for persons adversely affected as a result of terrorist violence .............". The instructions inter alia provide that the amount"may be paid to the next of kin of innocent civilians, killed by terrorists or by security forces during action against terrorists or otherwise" (Emphasis supplied). A perusal of the instructions shows that these were issued to lay dow the"scale of relief for persons adversely affected as a result of terrorist violence .............". The instructions inter alia provide that the amount"may be paid to the next of kin of innocent civilians, killed by terrorists or by security forces during action against terrorists or otherwise" (Emphasis supplied). On a perusal of the instructions, it is clear that the payment is made to the next of kin of innocent civilians who are killed by terrorists. 8. Mr. Berry contends that a person who is employed with the Bank cannot be called a civilian. Thus, his family shall not be entitled to any relief. We are unable to accept this contention. The State makes the payment to the family of a person who is killed in terrorist violence. Whether he is employed or unemployed is of no consequence. In fact, in the instructions it has been inter alia mentioned that civilianimplies private citizen. It appears that the expression has been used in contradistinction to the members of the Armed Forces. Nothing more. The fact that he is in service of either the State Government or any other institution in the State is not relevant. 9. Mr. Berry contends that in case of persons who are employed, the liability to pay is of the employer. It is only in case of the unemployed persons that the State makes the payment. We cannot accept this restricted interpretation of the instructions. In case of a person who is unemployed, the loss of the family would not be as much as in a case where the bread-winner is taken away by terrorist violence. In such a situation, there would be no rationale for denying benefit to a person merely because he is employed. Still further, if the State makes payment in a case where the person is unemployed, there would be no rationale for denying it to a person who is employed. In any case, the instructions do not even remotely suggest that a person being employed, the family shall not be entitled to any compensation. In the absence of a specific provision, we cannot add to the instructions to read (sic) a bar regarding payment to the family of a person who is in service. 10. Mr. In any case, the instructions do not even remotely suggest that a person being employed, the family shall not be entitled to any compensation. In the absence of a specific provision, we cannot add to the instructions to read (sic) a bar regarding payment to the family of a person who is in service. 10. Mr. Berry contends that vide letter dated 25/07/1991, it had been specifically laid down that the Punjab Government shall not give any ex-gratia grant to the dependents of the persons who are employed. 11. We have perused these instructions. A copy has been produced as Annexure R-1 with the written statement. In this letter, it has been observed that"no ex-gratia is to be given by Punjab Government to the dependents of the Central Government employees including Army personnel killed in terrorist violence in Punjab". It is, thus, clear that in cases where the payment was to be denied to the persons in service, specific instructions were issued. Only Central Government employees and the Army personnel were excluded. Not others. If persons who were in service were to be totally excluded from the release of ex-gratia grant, it would not have been necessary for the State Government to issue the letter dated 25/07/1991. Still further, it is the admitted position that the Government gives the ex-gratia grant in cases where its own employees have been killed by the terrorists. That being so, there can be no rationale in denying the benefit to the petitioners. 12. Faced with this situation, learned counsel submitted that vide letter dated 9/01/1987 petitioner No. 1 had been informed that she was not entitled to the grant of any benefit. Thus, the petitioners should not be given any relief as they have approached the Court through the present writ petition in the year 1999. 13. We are unable to accept this contention. Firstly, no plea of delay has been raised in the pleadings. Secondly, it is the admitted case of the respondents that when the petitioners had sent a legal notice, the matter was being examined. Even otherwise, the authorities were in touch with the employer of the deceased. Still further, by the lapse of time, no rights have accrued to the respondents. If at all, they have only retained the money which had to be paid to the petitioners. 14. Even otherwise, the authorities were in touch with the employer of the deceased. Still further, by the lapse of time, no rights have accrued to the respondents. If at all, they have only retained the money which had to be paid to the petitioners. 14. It has also been contended that the benefits as admissible under the Rules having been granted to the petitioners by the Bank, no further relief is admissible. We cannot accept this contention. It is not disputed that ex-gratia grant has been given even in cases of employees of the State Government. Still further, the fact that a person is employed or has got certain benefits under the Rules from the employer cannot absolve the State Government of its responsibility to grant the benefits admissible under its own instructions. It can happen that a person who is employed may be killed within a few days of his joining service. No retiral benefits may accrue to anyone. Can the State Government be absolved of its responsibility under the instructions despite the fact that nothing is due to the family after the death of its bread-winner? The answer is no. Similar is the position in the present case. The mere fact that payment of a few thousand rupees is made on account of gratuity etc. cannot mean that the amount due by way of ex-gratia grant shall not be admissible. The family would have got that gratuity even if the employee had not been killed by a terrorist. Ram Narain had died while performing the onerous duty of a cashier in the Bank. His family cannot be worse off than a person who is not employed. If at all the loss of the family was much higher. Thus, the benefit as contemplated under the instructions has to be released. 15. No other point has been raised. 16. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are directed to release the amount of Rs. 1 lac within one month from today. In case of failure to make this payment, the petitioners shall be entitled to this amount along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date when the notice was served on the respondents till the date of actual payment. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.