Judgment:
H.S. Bedi, J.
1. The petitioner Smt. Mohinder Kaur, the widow of Bhai Bakshish Singh, a well known Ragi has filed this petition claiming that the benefits due to the murder of her husband in a terrorist attack on 27th November, 1990 which were due under the scheme framed by the Punjab Government for such cases, should be paid to her. It is the admitted case that Bhai Bakshish Singh was a domicile of the State of Punjab and was killed in the Union Territory Chandigarh when he was visiting his daughter who was residing there. The petitioner made an application on 8th February, 1991 to the Union Territory Chandigarh as also the State of Punjab seeking the benefits of the ex-gratia amount etc. The matter was taken up by the Punjab Government with the U.T. Administration vide Annexure P3 dated 29th June, 1992 and various other communications were also exchanged between the two. The State of Punjab finally declined to pay the compensation to the petitioner on the ground that the murder had taken place in the Union Territory, Chandigarh. It is the admitted position that the petitioner had been paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by the U.T. Administration as per their policy in such cases.
2. Frustrated in her attempts to get the ex gratia amount, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus that the State of Punjab be directed to give her the benefits due under the Punjab Government policy.
3. Notice of motion was issued and two written statements had been filed one by the State of Punjab and the other by the U.T. Administration. In the written statement filed by the State of Punjab, it has been admitted that Bhai Bakshish Singh was a domicile of the State of Punjab but it is denied that any benefit was to be given to the petitioner on the ground that the murder had taken place in the Union Territory, Chandigarh and it was for the U.T. Administration to compensate the petitioner in such manner as was permissible.
4. In the written statement filed by the U.T. Administration it has been stated that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- which was due under the scheme framed by the U.T. Administration had already been paid to the petitioner and no other amount was due to her.
5. Mr. Govind Goel, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the stand of the State of Punjab that Annexure R-1 (the Policy for the grant of ex gratia amount) was not applicable to the case of the petitioner, was not correct inasmuch as that a bare reading of the instructions indicated that it fully applied to the facts of the case of the petitioner. He has referred to Clause (2) which deals with eligibility and then to Sub-clause (v) and has urged that widows who lost their bread-winners due to extremists/terrorists activities/action of security forces acting in aid of civil power would be entitled to these benefits and that these clauses are not limited to only such persons killed in Punjab and a broad view has been taken that a domicile of the State of Punjab who has been killed outside the State should also be given the aforesaid benefits as well. He has also relied on Annexure R-4 which the stand of the State Government is 'that the benefits of ex gratia etc. had been extended by the Punjab Government to the dependents of innocent civilians of other States and the Union Territory Chandigarh, who have been killed in the terrorist violence in, Punjab with effect from 1.8.1982 irrespective of the fact that they are domiciles of Punjab or not' to contend that the Punjab Government itself had extended the benefits even to those who were not domiciled in Punjab and to take the stand that a domicile of the State of Punjab was not entitled to compensation, would be absolutely unacceptable. It is also the conceded position on all hands that the Sikh migrants from Delhi and other places who had suffered in the riots of 1984 have been granted various amounts in cash and other facilities.
6. After heating the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to succeed for the reasons argued by Mr. Goel. It bears repetition and it is the admitted case that Bhai Bakshish Singh, Ragi was a domicile of the State of Punjab but was killed in the Union Territory Chandigarh on a short visit to his daughter's house and to deny the benefits to the petitioner on the ground that as he has been killed in the Union Territory Chandigarh is beyond logic in the light of the fact that the benefits of ex gratia and other facilities have been granted to such Sikh migrants outside the State and even to the non-domicile who have been killed in the State of Punjab.
7. This petition is accordingly allowed and a direction is issued to the respondent-State of Punjab to grant all the facilities due to the petitioner on account of the killing of her husband Bhai Bakshish Singh. The amounts due to her and all other facilities will be made available within a period of two months from the date that a copy of this order is supplied to respondent No. 1. It is further directed that the cash amounts due to the petitioner will be paid to her with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum from 27th November, 1990 till the date of payment.