C.W.P. No.2372 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.2372 of 2010 Date of Decision.04.08.2011 Harjit Singh son of late Sh. Jaswant Singh resident of House No.94, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh .....Petitioner Versus Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs through its Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate for UOI/respondent No.1. Mr. Arvind Mittal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner seeks for relief under the Scheme, which is declared by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, providing for “rehabilitation package “ to the victims of "1984 Sikh Riots". The petitioner claims to be the son of Jaswant Singh and Daljit Kaur. The former, who was a Railway employee, got killed in the riot that took place in the year 1984. The scheme provides for an ex-gratia amount of Rs.3.5 lacs in case of death during the riots and it declares that this would be in addition to any amount already paid by the respective State Governments. The petitioner claims that he was recognized as a riot victim and he was offered job in the State Government in his capacity as C.W.P. No.2372 of 2010 -2- such riot victim following the death of his father in the riots. The Scheme also provides for pension to all the widows and old aged parents of those who were killed in the 1984 riots at the uniform rate of Rs.2500/- per month. This Scheme has been introduced on 16.01.2006. It is not in denial that the widow expired in the year 2002 and on the date of coming into force of the scheme, she was not alive to claim the pension and therefore, the petitioner cannot make any claim relating to the pension in the manner sought for in the writ petition. 2. However, as far as the claim for ex gratia of Rs.3.5 lacs is concerned, the contention is that as a son of a victim of the riots, he is entitled to be paid the said amount. There is no particular reference in the scheme as to who shall be the person entitled to lodge the claim. In this case, the petitioner's status as son of Jaswant Singh and Daljit Kaur is sought to be disputed by reference to some entries in the red card, which the petitioner has produced that shows him to be a resident of Faridabad whereas the panchnama filed in Court shows the residence before the death of victim to be at Ghaziabad. The claim of the petitioner is resisted by the Union on the ground that death took place in Uttar Pradesh and therefore, the claim can be lodged only in Uttar Pradesh. I find that this objection is not tenable, for, there is no liability of the State in this case and there is clear reference to the fact that in terms of clause (i) of the scheme, the liability shall be on the Union of India, which is said to be in addition to the amount already paid by the State Government. 3. The only residual point for consideration would be whether the petitioner is son of Jaswant Singh and Daljir Kaur. The petitioner shall C.W.P. No.2372 of 2010 -3- make an application to the 3rd respondent adducing such proof relating to his status and explaining the discrepancies and the State Government, respondent No.3 will take a decision and if his identity as riot victim and son of the deceased Jaswant Singh is established, it shall make recommendation to the Union for release of the ex-gratia payment of Rs.3.5 lacs as contemplated in teh Scheme. The decision shall be taken by the State Government-3rd respondent within six weeks from the date of receipt of representation with appropriate documentary proof from the petitioner and if recommendation is in favour of the petitioner, the same shall be forwarded and considered by the Union of India and the amount shall be released within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of such recommendation from the State Government. 2. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 04, 2011 Pankaj