CWP No.2250 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2250 of 2008 Date of decision: February 20, 2009. Surjeet Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Union of India & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mrs. K.K. Kahlon, Advocate for respondent(s) No.1. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks a mandamus to grant him compensation under the 'Rehabilitation Package' in terms of the Central Government policy dated 16.1.2006 (Annexure P-4) notified for the victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. The petitioner's case is that he was a resident of Sham Colony, Ballabgarh in District Faridabad and used to work as Turner with M/s Blue Forgings Pvt. Ltd., 24 Milestone, Delhi-Mathura Road, Ballabgarh. He CWP No.2250 of 2008 -: 2 :- worked as such from 13.12.1983 to 31.10.1985. It is his case that during 1984 riots, he was attacked by the miscreants on 2.11.1984 and was seriously injured for which he had to undergo treatment as an indoor patient at ESIC Hospital, Chawla Colony, Ballabgarh. The petitioner relies upon the ration card issued by the Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, Ballabgarh (Annexure P-2) as well as the employment certificate (Annexure P-3). In order to establish that he was attacked by the anti-social elements on 2.11.1984 and suffered grievous injuries, the petitioner has relied upon FIR No.247 dated 2.11.1984, registered at Police Station City Ballabgarh at 4.25 p.m. As soon as the petitioner recovered from the injuries, it is alleged that he shifted to village Kalesar, District Yamuna Nagar in order to save his life and that of his family members. The petitioner alleges that he is running from pillar to post to claim the compensation announced for the 1984 riot victims, including a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to which he is entitled to in terms of the policy notified by the Govt. of India on 16.1.2006 (Annexure P-4). Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the Union of India and the State of Haryana have filed their respective counter affidavits. The Union of India has taken a stand that in terms of the policy dated 16.1.2006, it is the duty of the local administration/State Government to scrutinize and verify the claims and in case the same are found to be genuine, to initially disburse the compensation amount from its own budget and then seek reimbursement from the Central Government. The State of Haryana unfortunately has taken all possible objections to defeat the petitioner's claim. It is averred that the above CWP No.2250 of 2008 -: 3 :- mentioned policy is only meant to provide additional financial assistance to those who have already been identified as riot-victims and the petitioner being not amongst those, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the material on record, I am of the considered view that the objection taken by the State Government is per se untenable in law. The fact that the petitioner did not previously seek or was granted any compensation as a riot-victim, cannot work to his disadvantage, if he is a genuine riot-affected person. The policy dated 16.1.2006 (Annexure P-4) clearly stipulates that:- “iii) All the claims will be duly verified/scrutinized by local administration/agency of state government. iv) Each state government will constitute a committee, which will consider the verified/scrutinized claims and given recommendation whether the claim should be accepted for payment or rejected. v) Based on the recommendation of the committee, the state government will initially make disbursement of the amount from their own budget. vi) After making disbursement the state government will calculate the local expenditure incurred on payment of ex- gratia/compensation and seek reimbursement from the ministry of Home Affairs. vii) All payments to the riot victims will be made through “account payee cheque” only. In case a beneficiary does not have a bank account, the state government will arrange a bank account to be opened in his/her name before the payment is made. viii) The state government would review the procedures prescribed for verification/scrutiny of claims to make it simple and less cumbersome to avoid delay and harassment CWP No.2250 of 2008 -: 4 :- to the riot victims.” The policy postulates that the State authorities shall verify genuineness of a claim put-forth before them and recommend or reject such claim. The facts pleaded by the petitioner, prima-facie, suggest that he is a victim of the 1984 riots. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, this writ petition is allowed; respondent No.2 – Government of Haryana is directed to verify the petitioner's claim through its local agencies including the District Administration of Faridabad and Yamuna Nagar. In case it is found that the petitioner is actually a riot-victim, the amount of compensation in terms of the policy dated 16.1.2006 (Annexure P-4) shall be released to him forthwith along with interest @ 9% per annum. The needful shall be done as early as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to say that the petitioner shall fully cooperate with the inquiry, to be conducted by the respondents in order to verify his claim. The State of Haryana shall be entitled to seek reimbursement of the entire amount of compensation including interest from the Union of India. No costs. February 20, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge