Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2429 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. Jagdeep Kaur

2006-07-03

SURYA KANT

body2006
Judgment SURYA KANT, J. 1. Aggrieved at the judgment and decree dated 15th March, 2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur whereby suit for declaration to the effect that the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to an exgratia grant of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of death of her husband in a road accident while on official duty, has been partly decreed and she has been held entitled for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (instead of Rs.50,000/-), that the State of Punjab has preferred this Regular Second Appeal. 2. The husband of the respondent-plaintiff was working as an executive Engineer in the Drainage Department, Government of Punjab and at the relevant time, he was posted at Gurdaspur. He died in a road accident on 24.8.2001 while he was returning from Chandigarh to Gurdaspur. The respondent was paid an ex-gratia grant of Rs.50,000/-, though, according to her, she was entitled to an ex-gratia grant of Rs.3,00,000/- as per the government circular No.2/19/2000-3fppc/641 dated 24.1.2001. Since the amount was not released despite a legal notice, the respondent filed a suit for declaration to this effect. 3. The appellant-State contested the aforesaid suit primarily on the ground that the husband of the respondent was not on official duty and was on a private visit when he died in the road accident. On a consideration of the evidence on record, especially letters dated 21.9.2001 (Ex. P2) and 4.9.2001 (Ex. P4), both the Courts have concurrently held that the husband of the respondent died in a road accident while on duty. Notwithstanding the said finding, learned trial Court dismissed the suit as according to it, the respondent was entitled for an exgratia grant of Rs.50,000/- only. 4. On an appeal by the respondent, learned first Appellate Court has considered the respondents claim in the light of government instructions dated 24.1.2001 (Ex. P1 ). According to the learned first appellate Court, the instructions categorically provides that in the case of an accidental death while on duty, the minimum ex-gratia amount to which the family of the deceased is entitled, shall be to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. Consequently, the respondents suit has been partly decreed and the appellant-State has been directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as an additional exgratia amount along with interest @ 8% per annum w. e. f.1.9.2001. Notice of motion was issued. However, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. 5. I have heard Mr. Consequently, the respondents suit has been partly decreed and the appellant-State has been directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as an additional exgratia amount along with interest @ 8% per annum w. e. f.1.9.2001. Notice of motion was issued. However, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. 5. I have heard Mr. Cheema, learned Senior DAG, Punjab on behalf of the appellants. Shri Cheema has fairly conceded that the contents of the government instructions dated 24.1.2001 (Ex. P1), as reproduced and referred to by the learned first Appellate Court, are correct. He, however, lays emphasis on the fact that the husband of the respondent was not on official duty at the time when the accident took place. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find any merit in this appeal. As observed earlier, both the Courts, on an appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, which includes letters Ex. P2 and P4, have concurrently held that the husband of the respondent died in a road accident while on duty. No interference in such like finding of fact is warranted unless a case of perverse findings is made out. This is not the case of the appellants. In view of Governments own instructions which have been relied upon by the first Appellate Court, there can be no escape but to affirm the judgment under appeal. No substantial question of law is, thus, involved in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.