IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, CHHATTISGARH at BILASPUR. i¥ls3 F iBSB.S.PIL WRIT PETITIONNO. /2006. PETITIONER fc ..••• ^^•"".---" >-^'%.--"" y•"".^••:'\^ ./"'•^•^(!.!•••'' ^c^'^" s^•ff -&a' ,«>• RESPONDENTS .^-5'-'""."^~~"'~S?.. Smt. Gulabi Bai Budek Wd/o Late Shri Tularam Budek Aged around 52 years, Occupation - House Wife Residine at: Village : Paterapali, SARAIPALI District: Mahasamund (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Ministry of Home, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, RAIPUR - (CG). ff^i II j" R -oM^,.;fe<.if "ii 1®^'^^ /'/• ^ f • ^'::^ •' ..••'.' The Director General ofPoIice, Police Head Quarters Chhattisgarh Police, RAIPUR - (CG) 3. The Inspector General of Police, Sarguja Range, ^ SARGUJA -~(CG). 4. The Superintendent of Police, Balrampur District, BALRAMPUR-(CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE ORDER AND DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF CERTJORARY, IVIANDAIVIUS ETC. ^; Smt. Gulabi Bai Budek WRIT PETITSON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF iNDIA Present:- Shri B.P.Rao, Advocate forthe Detitioner. (Passed on 21s: dsy ofSeptember, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner, seeks a direction to the State Government for payment of enhanced insurance amount of Rs. 10 G< oralty assured the petitioner (mother she woutd be granted a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs in addition to whatsoever amount has been pald to her. I, n is by the then 2. The State Government, thereafter, took a policy decision to provide insurance cover to the naxal a memorandum of understandlna was signed between the Government S" ^\f\i^.!K" payment QT Rs. 10 Lacs from 20.5.2005 onwards. 3. In the case on hand, the son of the petltioner died in January, 2005 Rs.13 Lacs, under the r-r prevailing provlsions. The petitioner clairns Rs. 10 Lacs in addition. / ..^iicaaf '-•»-, 'fWVK-^.' ashok !t Is well settled principie of law that a policy decision / notification cannot be made effective retrospectively, unless contrary is prowded in the pollcy decision / notification itself. It is clear case of the State martyrdom in a naxalite attack are entitled to the said benefit oniy after .2005, which cannot be granted to the petitioner. n view of the fore.Qoina, there is no merit of petitioner is not entitied to any further additional sum, as the same is Accordingly, the wr'rt petition i Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotti Judge