IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.253 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.2.2010 The State of Haryana and another. -----Appellants Vs. Smt. Santosh and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl.A.G., Haryana for the appellants. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, directing compensation in terms of Government instructions to be paid to the respondent, widow of an Army person who died while on duty. 2. Subhash Chander, husband of respondent No.1 was employed as Havildar in the Indian Army and was posted on the Line of Control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He died on 2.11.2005. The writ petitioner was informed that her husband died during “Karma Operation” while discharging his duty on the Line of Control. The cremation was attended by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Superintendent of Police. She LPA No.253 of 2010 applied for compensation in terms of Government instructions dated 30.9.1999, 15.6.2001 and 22.9.1998. Her claim was rejected by the appellants on 18.4.2006 on the ground that the death was by heart attack and by wrong information, he was declared as martyr. The respondent No.1 filed writ petition, challenging refusal to grant compensation. 3. Learned Single Judge upheld the claim of the respondent, holding as under:- “..........The entire stand of the respondents that he died of heart attack. The fact that he was part of the operational Unit and was posted at the Line of Control in a Morcha is not disputed. Though he did not die in an encounter or in the battle, but he was in the battle field. ........... However, the Government instructions dated 30.9.99 provides for ex-gratia compensation to the families of the defence personnel who died in harness in the performance of their bona fide official duties while serving in operation like Operation Karma and was posted at the Line of Control in a Morcha. He was performing a bona fide official duty and died in harness while performing such duty. It is also admitted position that he died due to severe cold in the area. Such a situation cannot be divorced from the performance of the bona fide duty. It is not necessary that he should die by a bullet of the enemy or on account of any injury or other factor. Another aspect of the matter which cannot be ignored is that the Government of India instructions even provides for payment of compensation where death occurs due to accident in course of performance of duty. The 2 LPA No.253 of 2010 accident does not mean only vehicular accident but has wider connotation. It can be of any kind of accident. The petitioner’s husband suffered on account of severe cold while discharging his duty and thus his case falls within the purview of government instructions dated 30.9.1999.” 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 5. As rightly held by learned Single Judge, the husband of respondent No.1 was on duty at Line of Control and in such situation, the manner or cause of death cannot be a ground to deny ex-gratia payments under the Government instructions, the scope of which is not limited to death by an action of the enemy. Death is clearly attributable to Army service and is, thus, covered by the instructions. The object of the instructions is to provide relief to family of the Army man who dies in the battlefield. This being the situation, no fault can be found with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The matter was also considered earlier by Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.2797 of 2001 State of Haryana v. Raj Bala and others decided on 7.5.2009 wherein it was observed:- “......The fact remains that the death was while serving the Army during Operation Vijay at a forward posting at high altitude, which by itself involved risk to life. The deceased was not on a pleasure trip, but was there to serve the cause of armed forces. He was in prime of his youth. His death cannot be called natural death, not attributable to the cause of serving the 3 LPA No.253 of 2010 Army. In such a situation, if he lost his life, it cannot be said that he was not a martyr. If the State declared a policy of giving financial aid to families of martyrs, it cannot deny such aid on hyper technical grounds now pleaded. Action of the State must match its words.......” 6. In view of above, this appeal is without any merit and is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 23, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 4