24 years on, armyman’s widow to get ₹10 lakh on HC’s intervention
A petition was filed against the government’s decision in 2003 which was decided in 2016 with the directions to reconsider the claim. The same was rejected by Haryana again in March 2017. It was against this order she filed the petition in 2018 which has been decided now in her favour.
Almost 24 years after her husband’s death, a Haryana armyman’s widow will get ex gratia following court intervention now. The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has allowed plea for the same by Jagroshni Devi from Pataudi area in Gurugram and directed that the ex gratia be released to her within three months. As per the 1999 policy, the sum to be granted to the woman was ₹10 lakh.
Her husband, Naik Bhagirath, died in October 2000 during a mountaineering expedition at Gorichen Peak (6,448 metre) in Arunachal Pradesh during an operation, named Falcon. The commanding officer had certified that the casualty be treated as operational casualty for financial assistance. The General Officer Commanding, who investigated the circumstances of the death, had also recommended the same. However, the Haryana government rejected her claim in 2002.
As per her lawyer Rajesh Sehgal, a petition was filed against the government’s decision in 2003 which was decided in 2016 with the directions to reconsider the claim. The same was rejected by Haryana again in March 2017. It was against this order she filed the petition in 2018 which has been decided now in her favour.
The petitioner’s argument was that as per the Haryana government policy of November 30, 1999, amended in the backdrop of Kargil war, his death was to be treated as casualty in an operational area. The government’s argument was that an amendment was carried out in November 2001 and as per that the death cannot be treated as one in military operation as he died in a mountaineering expedition.
The bench of justice Vinod S Bhardwaj said the order passed by the authorities “suffers from an illegality and applies substantive amendment retrospectively under the garb of being a clarificatory procedural requirement”. The case in hand is squarely covered by Krishna Devi judgment. The death in the present case took place in October 2000 in a bonafide operation being undertaken by the deceased while the clarificatory notification of the policy came in 2001, it said. In the Krishna Devi judgment in 2013, the high court had laid down that 2001 notification of the Haryana government virtually laid down a new policy, which the state government was competent to promulgate, but from the date it was notified. Hence, it could not have been applied retrospectively.