IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.679 of 2009 Date of decision: 15.01.2009 Vijay Singh ...... Petitioner versus State of Haryana & another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing the State of Haryana to grant ex-gratia compensation to the parents of Sandeep Palarwal who was a flying officer in Indian Air Force over his plain crash during operation 'Prakaram'. The contention of the learned counsel is that Central Government has granted ex-gratia compensation but the State Government has refused to do so. In my opinion, the policy of the Central Government is slightly different to that of the State Government. As far as the Central Government is concerned, a perusal of document Annexure P-3 shows that the Central Government has included the following clause: i) During battle inoculation as part of prescribed training exercises involving the use of live ammunition. Under this clause, the Central Government considered the death of the son of the petitioner as 'battle casualty'. However, in the case of State of Haryana the eligibility condition CWP No.679 of 2009 -2- for ex-gratia is as follows: Families of Defence Forces Personnel belonging to Haryana and killed and notified as Battle Casualities/Battle Accidents by Defence authorities when the death is due to: a) Militant/terrorist encounter in operational area or due to Border skirmishes. b) I.E.D. Blast. This condition does not incorporate anything which could be held to equal to clause mentioned above. The ex-gratia compensation is by definition a concession. I put it to the learned counsel if there would be any illegality if the State of Haryana decide to discontinue such ex-gratia compensation altogether and he could not deny that the State was well within its competence to do so. If that is so then it cannot be said that the policy of the State cannot be different from that of the Central Government. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that there is a right under which heirs can demand a writ of mandamus. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. January 15, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE