Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Mar 12: The State High Court today directed the Government to grant Rs 15 lakhs as an ex-gratia relief to a person who was disabled during cross firing in Lal Chowk area of Srinagar 25 years ago.
Ashiq Hussain Farash of Harwan in the outskirts of Srinagar was injured in cross firing in December 1990 in Lal Chowk area of Srinagar. He was disabled due to injury and claimed ex-gratia of Rs 20 lakhs from Government and appointment as Class-IV in Government department.
Farash’s ex-gratia claim was rejected by the Government in November 2011 and he challenged it in the court of law.
Court said the authorities have failed to response the claims contained in the writ petition despite various opportunities granted by the court but no reply has been chosen to file by the authorities.
“This is the second round of litigation on petitioner’s right to be considered for compassionate appointment and ex-gratia relief. When it was pointed out to learned AAG that petitioner’s claim stands admitted by respondents in as much as petitioner is said to have fallen victim to cross firing incident”, court said adding “despite opportunities, Reply Affidavit has not been filed till date. Even, learned counsel for the respondents, has not come up with a stand in terms of Court order”.
“The respondent – State is directed to pay an amount of Rs.15 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner. This amount shall be paid to him ‘within four weeks’ from the date copy of this order is served on the respondent-state”, directed Justice MH Attar while considering the claim of the victim for ex-gratia relief.
Underscoring the basic human rights recognized by the Constitutional provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution of India; court said that it becomes duty of the respondent – State to protect life, liberty and property of its citizens.
Referring Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which provides ‘protection of life and personal liberty’, Court said no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
“In the aforesaid fact situation of this case, the petitioner has sustained bullet injuries, which has rendered his right arm movement less. The petitioner, who was working as a laborer, as per pleadings in the writ petition, has been, thus, deprived to practice any profession or to carry on any profession, trade or business as guaranteed by Article 19 (g) of the Constitution”.
Court said it is duty of the State to adequately compensate Farash because of the action of the, the guarantee, contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as available to the petitioner, has also been infringed, in as much as, he is not in a position to lead his life as a normal human being (as now he is disabled by right arm and right hand), which status, Almighty had given to him, as he was born as an able bodied person.
Court while referring the Article 21 of the constitution observed the respondent-State, having failed to enforce the aforesaid Constitutional provisions, has, in turn, failed in its duty to protect the petitioner and has also failed in allowing him to lead his life as an able bodied person. “The respondent- State is duty bound to compensate the petitioner”, Justice Attar said.
The petitioner, in the writ petition, has pleaded that he belongs to a poor family and was the only source of livelihood for his family having no landed estate or any other source of income. It is his case that he was hit by a bullet and in essence, he was caught in cross firing between the security forces and militants. It is also pleaded that the petitioner sustained serious injuries and was admitted in SKIMS, Soura, Srinagar, under MRD No. 74594 and a medical case of bullet injury on right side of chest and right upper arm was registered on December 31, 1990. The petitioner was discharged on January 10, 1991 and was advised treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi.
It is also pleaded by the petitioner’s counsel that because of poverty, the petitioner could not undergo further treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi, which resulted in loss of movement of his right arm and right hand, thus, rendering him handicapped for whole of his life as such is not in a position to make his both ends meet.
Appearing counsel for the State vehemently resisted the claim of the petitioner and argued that the writ petition is not maintainable, in as much as, a Civil Suit on same cause, filed by the petitioner, stands dismissed for non prosecution.
While allowing the petition of the petitioner Farash, the court rejected the arguments made by the State counsel and added in the order that the dismissal of Civil Suit for non prosecution, which means nothing is decided by the Civil Court on merits, will not render this writ petition unsustainable in law.
Follow our WhatsApp channel