ORDER Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Petitioner, widow of an army man, has filed this writ petition seeking an enquiry into the circumstances, where her late husband was first declared as being a recipient of "Paramvir Chakra award" Posthumously but later the same was changed to "Sena Medal" award. Petitioner is the widow of a brave soldier Yogender Yadav of the 18 grenadiers, who sacrificed his life during the "Operation Vijay". A number of press reports carried the news that Yogender Yadav had been awarded the "Paramvir Chakra" posthumously. These naturally gave enough cause to the petitioner to nurture apprehensions and misgivings as to how the award was subsequently changed to the "Sena Medal", culminating in the filing of this petition.
2. Notice to show cause in this case had been issued and respondents filed counter affidavit, explaining how the mistake occurred. This happens a case of mistaken identity. It is rather unusual to have two soldiers with the same name and caste namely "Yogender Singh Yadav" both belonging to the same 18 Battalion Grenadiers. The respondents were directed to produce the records, for the perusal of the Court to satisfy itself that this was genuinely a case of mistaken identity.
3. The records have been produced. I have perused the same. The petitioner's husband was Grenadier Yogender Singh Yadav with serial No. 2683671 R/O. P.O. Hastinapur, Meerut. His date of birth is given as 1-5-1970, he was enrolled on 17-10-1988, with date of retirement as 31-10-2005. In his case a recommendation had been made for an award of the "Sena Medal" posthumously. The other Grenadier also named Yogendera Singh Yadav, who has been awarded the Paramvir Chakra, was having serial No. 2690572, with date of birth as 10-5-1980 and was enrolled on 27-11-1986 with retirement date of 31-12-2013. He was resident of Aurangabad, Bulandshehar, U.P. The citation and the recommendation show that the latter was for capturing more than one bunker of the enemy and silencing the enemy fire single handed.
4. It is not the function of this court to review the respective gallantry awards being given or to question the comparative assessment. Fortunately this is also not the main thrust of the petitioner's submission. The petitioner wanted to be primarily satisfied that it should not be an error, which denies him the supreme gallantry award.
After perusal of recommendation, I am satisfied that the petitioner was infact awarded the Sena Medal. This should not dishearten the petitioner as there has been recognition of her late husband, who laid down his life in the cause of the nation.
Writ petition stands disposed of. No further orders/directions are called for.
Learned counsel for the respondent undertakes to place on record Annexures A and B of the documents. The records be returned.