C.W.P No.3341 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.3341 of 2011 Date of decision: 24.2.2011. Kamlesh .............Petitioner v Union of India and others ..............Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.K.S. Malik-I, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J By filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has assailed the report dated 22.12.2005 (P.4), order dated 21.9.2006 (P.5) and 13.12.2010 (P.11) passed by respondent Nos.3,4 & 6 respectively rejecting their claim for declaring her husband late Sh. Bijender Singh-Hawaldar as a Shaheed/Martyr and granting the benefit of ex-gratia payment; further prayer is for directing the respondents to declare her husband as a Shaheed/Martyr and grant the aforesaid benefit in the Shaheed category. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on the basis of instruction dated 30.9.1999 (P.7) as well as instruction dated 15.6.2001 (P.8) issued by the Chief Secretary to Government of C.W.P No.3341 of 2011 #2# Haryana, the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed in the present writ petition. He has further argued that respondent No.6 has wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 13.12.2010 (P.11) and the same is liable to be set aside in view of the above instructions. In support of his contention, learned relies on a judgment of this Court reported as Santosh v. Union of India and others, 2010(1) RSJ 644. A perusal of the impugned order dated 13.12.2010 reveals that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by respondent No.6 on the ground that she is not entitled for declaration of her husband as Shaheed/Martyr and consequent ex-gratia grant because Havaldar Bijender Singh was not killed in action/action against militant/terrorists or during border skirmishes rather he died because of Acute Myocardial Infraction and it is further recorded that the death of individual is not covered under the State Government Policy. The record of the case shows that initially the husband of the petitioner late Hav.- Bijender Singh joined the Rajputana Rifles in Indian Army as a Soldier on 22.7.1987 and later on he was promoted as Havaldar while working as such he died on 4.12.2005 due to Acute Myocardial Infraction in Counter Insurgency Operation (Operation Rakshak-II) Jammu & Kashmir and as per casuality report dated 22.12.2005 (P.4), the cause, description, brief circumstances and diagnoses relating to his death are as under: “2. (d) Cause- Acute Myocardial Infraction, while inducting for dply in CT Ios in active fd area. (e) Description- Acute Myocardial Infraction C.W.P No.3341 of 2011 #3# (f) Brief description of circumstances- No.2884838Y hav. Bijender Singh was part of Commanding Officer quick reaction team which was inducting for deployment to conduct counter terrorism operation “Tilmat” in active field area with effect from 041600 hours. At 042145 hours the non commission officer complained of uneasiness and severe chest pain. Individual was immediately attended to by nursing assistant accompanying the column and evacuated to dardpura Company operating base at 04221 hours. Regimental Medical Officer 14 RR attended to the individual & gave necessary medical aid immediately. Individual was declared dead at 042240 hours by regimental medical officer 14 RR. (g) Diagnosis- Acute Myocardial Infraction” A perusal of instruction dated 30.9.1999 reveals that the Government of Haryana has framed a policy and decided that w.e.f 1.4.1999, the ex-gratia grant/compensation to the families of defence service personnel and of the para military forces, who die in harness in the performance of their bonafide official duties while serving in operations like Kargil and other Sectors shall be granted Rs.10 lacs for all categories namely, officers/junior commissioned officers and other ranks and to the disabled as explained under for all categories depending upon the percentage of disability as assessed by concerned authorities irrespective of the fact whether they are retained as welfare measure or boarded out. Further perusal of subsequent instruction dated 15.6.2001 (P.8) reveals that the reward money of Rs.Ten Lac in recognition of acts of bravery, gallantry and sacrifice would be paid to the families C.W.P No.3341 of 2011 #4# who die during an enemy action in International war or such was like engagements, which are specifically notified by the Ministry of Defence, Govt of India. This would be in addition to whatever Ex- gratia relief is admissible under Govt of India instructions. The Ex- gratia grant will be admissible to the families of those defence personnel who hail from Haryana and get killed in militant encounters and declared as Battle Casualities as per amounts given in Annexure 'A' and conditions of eligibility given in Annexure 'B'. A combined reading of Annexure A along with the casuality report dated 22.12.2005 (P.4) relating to late Havaldar Bijender Singh reproduced here-in-above reveals that neither the case of the petitioner is covered under these instructions nor is she eligible under Annexure B appended with the instruction dated 15.6.2001 as her husband died due to Acute Myocardial Infraction, which cannot be said to be a ground for claiming the benefits under the instructions referred above in the form of a concession to the defence personnel or para military forces as the case may be. So far as the judgment in Santosh's case (supra), the same is distinguishable as in that case the husband of the petitioner was deputed in (Karma Operation) on the Line Of Control in Gore Sector in Kashmir, which is known as a coldest place and he died on account of severe cold due to “Myocardial Infraction leading to Cardiac Arrest” whereas in the present case the husband of the petitioner died because of Acute Myocardial Infraction. C.W.P No.3341 of 2011 #5# Respondent No.6 has rightly passed the impugned order after taking into consideration the entire record of the case as well as hearing the petitioner in person being the competent and designated authority in view of the instructions referred above. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 13.12.2010 passed by respondent No.6 warranting any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Dismissed. 24.2.2011. (Jaswant Singh) manoj Judge