CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana excessive courtroom has made it clear that if a soldier from Haryana dies within the line of obligation, his household can’t be denied ex gratia advantages as per state’s coverage on the grounds of some subsequent adjustments within the coverage.
The courtroom has handed these orders whereas directing the state’s sainik welfare division to launch ex gratia to the household of a military soldier who had died in Oct 2000 whereas coming back from Gorichen summit to camp in Arunachal Pradesh throughout obligation.
As per the state’s directions dated Sept 30, 1999, the household was entitled to the ex gratia of Rs 10 lakh, because the soldier had died within the line of obligation. Authorities in Haryana had declined the identical, citing a subsequent memo dated Nov 7, 2001.
HC has held that such advantages can’t be denied retrospectively, below the garb of being a clarificatory procedural requirement.
Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj has handed these orders whereas permitting a petition filed by Jagroshini Devi, a resident of Gurgaon district in Haryana, difficult the order dated March 24, 2017, handed by the secretary, Rajya Sainik Board, Haryana, declining her declare for grant of ex gratia.
Petitioner’s husband Naik Bhagirath, who was serving in 8 Maratha Mild Infantry died on Oct 23, 2000, whereas coming back from Gorichen summit to camp. His loss of life was ordered to be handled as a battle casualty in ‘Operation Falcon’ and attributable to navy service within the subject in accordance with the courtroom of inquiry proceedings investigating the circumstances below which a soldier loses his life. Military had issued a certificates concerning reason for loss of life, certifying that Bhagirath was killed in motion.
The Military had launched her all types of advantages granted to a battle causality. Nevertheless, Haryana govt refused to grant her an ex gratia of Rs 10 lakh as per its coverage via which an quantity is given to troopers who die within the line of obligation. Haryana had taken the stand that the advantages are granted for the sacrifice of battle heroes as per Haryana govt’s directions Sept 30, 1999, and clarification dated Nov 7, 2001. The case of the husband of the petitioner just isn’t coated below Haryana coverage as his loss of life has occurred attributable to fall from the Gorichen peak at Arunachal Pradesh whereas coming back from Summit to Camp II as a member of Gorichen mountaineering expedition workforce solely, and never in a navy operation
Difficult the state’s transfer, the counsel for the petitioner knowledgeable the HC that as per the preliminary coverage for ex gratia help notified by the state on Sept 30, 1999, which was in power as on Oct 23, 2000, when Bhagirath died in efficiency of his bona fide operational obligation, he was entitled to monetary help. An modification was subsequently carried out in a memo dated Nov 7, 2001, despite the fact that the identical is clarificatory. “The mentioned rationalization somewhat excludes all different forms of casualties besides battle casualties and battle accidents from the coverage of Sept 30, 1999. Such a coverage/choice can’t be labelled as a clarificatory memo and is somewhat a substantive modification which may be enforced solely prospectively. The state has denied the advantages to the petitioner by putting reliance on subsequent coverage,” the counsel had submitted.
After listening to the events, HC held that the choice to say no ex gratia below directions dated Sept 30, 1999, by putting reliance on subsequent memo dated Nov 7, 2001, was misplaced and the mentioned clarification was not relevant to incidents that had already taken place previous to issuance of the mentioned directions by Haryana govt. “The order handed by the Haryana authorities suffers from an illegality and applies substantive modification retrospectively, below the garb of being a clarificatory procedural requirement. For the reason that loss of life of the petitioner’s husband came about on October 23, 2000, in a bona fide operation being undertaken by the deceased,” noticed the courtroom whereas directing the authorities to launch all the advantages to the widow inside three months.
The courtroom has handed these orders whereas directing the state’s sainik welfare division to launch ex gratia to the household of a military soldier who had died in Oct 2000 whereas coming back from Gorichen summit to camp in Arunachal Pradesh throughout obligation.
As per the state’s directions dated Sept 30, 1999, the household was entitled to the ex gratia of Rs 10 lakh, because the soldier had died within the line of obligation. Authorities in Haryana had declined the identical, citing a subsequent memo dated Nov 7, 2001.
HC has held that such advantages can’t be denied retrospectively, below the garb of being a clarificatory procedural requirement.
Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj has handed these orders whereas permitting a petition filed by Jagroshini Devi, a resident of Gurgaon district in Haryana, difficult the order dated March 24, 2017, handed by the secretary, Rajya Sainik Board, Haryana, declining her declare for grant of ex gratia.
Petitioner’s husband Naik Bhagirath, who was serving in 8 Maratha Mild Infantry died on Oct 23, 2000, whereas coming back from Gorichen summit to camp. His loss of life was ordered to be handled as a battle casualty in ‘Operation Falcon’ and attributable to navy service within the subject in accordance with the courtroom of inquiry proceedings investigating the circumstances below which a soldier loses his life. Military had issued a certificates concerning reason for loss of life, certifying that Bhagirath was killed in motion.
The Military had launched her all types of advantages granted to a battle causality. Nevertheless, Haryana govt refused to grant her an ex gratia of Rs 10 lakh as per its coverage via which an quantity is given to troopers who die within the line of obligation. Haryana had taken the stand that the advantages are granted for the sacrifice of battle heroes as per Haryana govt’s directions Sept 30, 1999, and clarification dated Nov 7, 2001. The case of the husband of the petitioner just isn’t coated below Haryana coverage as his loss of life has occurred attributable to fall from the Gorichen peak at Arunachal Pradesh whereas coming back from Summit to Camp II as a member of Gorichen mountaineering expedition workforce solely, and never in a navy operation
Difficult the state’s transfer, the counsel for the petitioner knowledgeable the HC that as per the preliminary coverage for ex gratia help notified by the state on Sept 30, 1999, which was in power as on Oct 23, 2000, when Bhagirath died in efficiency of his bona fide operational obligation, he was entitled to monetary help. An modification was subsequently carried out in a memo dated Nov 7, 2001, despite the fact that the identical is clarificatory. “The mentioned rationalization somewhat excludes all different forms of casualties besides battle casualties and battle accidents from the coverage of Sept 30, 1999. Such a coverage/choice can’t be labelled as a clarificatory memo and is somewhat a substantive modification which may be enforced solely prospectively. The state has denied the advantages to the petitioner by putting reliance on subsequent coverage,” the counsel had submitted.
After listening to the events, HC held that the choice to say no ex gratia below directions dated Sept 30, 1999, by putting reliance on subsequent memo dated Nov 7, 2001, was misplaced and the mentioned clarification was not relevant to incidents that had already taken place previous to issuance of the mentioned directions by Haryana govt. “The order handed by the Haryana authorities suffers from an illegality and applies substantive modification retrospectively, below the garb of being a clarificatory procedural requirement. For the reason that loss of life of the petitioner’s husband came about on October 23, 2000, in a bona fide operation being undertaken by the deceased,” noticed the courtroom whereas directing the authorities to launch all the advantages to the widow inside three months.
