Partap Singh vs Union Of India And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 1361 Del

15 & 16.

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       Date of Decision: 28.02.2012

%      W.P.(C) 2604/2010

       PARTAP SINGH                                       ..... Petitioner
                             Through:   Ms. Parul Goel, Adv.

                      versus

       UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS                  ..... Respondents
                       Through: Mr. A. S. Chandhiok, ASG with Ms.
                                Rita Kaul, Mr Bhagat Singh, Mr.
                                Vidit Gupta & Ms. Hasleen Singh,
                                Mr. Nazmi Waziri, Adv. for GNCTD.

                                        AND

%      W.P.(C) 3035/2010

       DALJIT SINGH & ORS.                              ..... Petitioner
                       Through:         Ms. Madhu Tewatia, Adv.

                      versus

       GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.         ..... Respondents
                    Through:   Mr. A. S. Chandhiok, ASG with
                               Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Mr Bhagat
                               Singh, Mr. Vidit Gupta &
                               Ms.Hasleen Singh, Advs. for UOI.
                               Advs. for UOI.
                               Mr. Nazmi Waziri, Adv. for GNCTD.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

VIPIN SANGHI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners in both these writ petitions under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India seek the same prayer i.e., for a direction to

the respondents i.e., the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Union of

India to pay and release to the petitioners rehabilitation grant of ex-

gratia at the rate of Rs. 2 lacs per family, along with interest, on

account of delay, in terms of notification no. U13018/46/2005-DELHI-

I(NC) dated 16.01.2006 issued by the Union of India.

2. The petitioners claim that they were residents of Delhi when the

communal riots in the wake of assassination of late Prime Minister Smt

Indira Gandhi broke out in the year 1984. The petitioners claim that

they migrated to Punjab in the wake of the said riots and they were

issued red cards by the State of Punjab which evidences the fact that

they started residing in Punjab. According to the petitioners, they

continued to live in Punjab for several years and when the situation

normalized in Delhi after few years (i.e., four years) they returned back

to Delhi and started living in Delhi.

3. Pursuant to Justice Nanavati Commission Enquiry Report which

went into the 1984 riots, the Government of India issued the aforesaid

decision dated 16.01.2006 on the subject of sanction of rehabilitation

package to provide relief to victims of 1984 riots. This communication

was addressed to various affected States, primarily in North India. The

said communication conveyed the decision of the Government of India

to sanction ex-gratia amount and other assistance to the victims of

1984 riots. Twelve different kinds of ex-gratia payments and other

assistance were provided in the said policy decision. Clause 12 of the

first paragraph is what is relevant for the purpose of the present

petition, and the same reads as follows:-

"(xii) Approximately 22,000 families of victims of the riots, which migrated to Punjab from other riot affected States and are still living there, would be paid Rehabilitation Grant @ Rs. 2 lakh per family. Similarly placed families of victims of the riots living in other States may also be given Rehabilitation Grant at the rate of Rs. 2 lakh per family."

4. When the petitioners applied for grant of rehabilitation grant at

the rate of Rs. 2 lacs per family, the same was met with refusal on the

ground that the petitioners had returned to Delhi and they did not

continue to remain in Punjab to which State they had migrated after

the riots in the year 1984. On account of the said stand taken by the

respondents, this petition has been preferred by the petitioners.

5. The submission of learned counsels for the petitioners is that the

interpretation sought to be given of Clause (xii) aforesaid by the

respondents and, in particular, by the Union of India is very narrow,

and defeats the very purpose of granting rehabilitatipon package to

the riot victims. It is submitted that the purpose of Clause (xii) was

not to deny rehabilitation grant to such families which migrated to the

Punjab and other States, from their home States (where they were

earlier residing), but after a few years, returned back to Delhi/their

home State for whatever reasons. It is submitted that even such

families required rehabilitation which had migrated to other states, as

they had to flee for their lives without their valuables and belongings,

and had to struggle in the State to which they migrated, to settle

themselves. Their subsequent relocation to their parent State (in this

case Delhi) did not mean that they were not entitled to rehabilitation

grant in terms of Clause (xii) aforesaid.

6. The petitioners have placed reliance on couple of decisions of

this Court in this regard. In S. Swarn Singh Arora vs. UOI & Ors.,

W.P.(C) 692/2007 decided on 10.02.2009, the dispute, as initially

resolved by the Court, was whether the Delhi Government or the

Punjab Government would provide the rehabilitation package of Rs. 2

lacs to such of the families who had migrated to Punjab after the riots,

but after a few years, had returned back to Delhi. The Court took the

view that since they have re-migrated to Delhi, the Delhi Government

should disburse the rehabilitation grant and the State Government

would be entitled to claim reimbursement from the Central

Government as, under the circular dated 16.01.2006, all the grants

had to be eventually provided by the Government of India. A review

petition was preferred in the said case, being Review Petition No.

260/2009, which was disposed of on 18.09.2009. In this order the

Court specifically interpreted the Clause (xii) aforesaid, in the following

manner:-

"...The submission made is that though the petitioner was displaced due to riots from Delhi and stayed in Punjab, he would be not entitled as he no longer resides there. Apart from reiterating the findings made earlier, this Court is of the opinion that the submission is untenable. Para-1 (xii) is explicit in this regard; which reads as follows:-

"1(xii) Approximately 22,000 families of victims of the riots, which migrated to Punjab from other riot affected States and are still living there, would be paid Rehabilitation Grant @ 2 lakh per family. Similarly placed families of victims of the riots living in other States may also be given Rehabilitation Grant at the rate of Rs. 2 lakh per family."

The last sentence emphasizes that similarly placed families of victims of the riots living in other States should also be given Rehabilitation Grant.

The review petitioner's argument about the petitioner's disentitlement is based on his not staying on in Punjab. This argument is particularly untenable since there is no denial of the basic foundation (sic) of the writ petitioner's entitlement as a riot victim and his being forced to move on to Punjab at the relevant period. That he was unable to stay on their due to vicissitudes of time is an irrelevant factor, if the overall objectives of the policy to rehabilitate the victims, is kept in mind. Besides, the last sentence emphasizes that the families of victims in other States could also be given Rehabilitation Grant. The restrictions urged by the review petitioner is, therefore, not supportable in terms of the policy itself as it artificially creates (sic) a single class of victims into two groups; those who were able to stay on at the place where they went to, and who are unable to do so because of the change in fortune.

In view of the above discussion, the review petition is unmerited; it is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the respondents shall file an undertaking to comply with the directions in the writ petition within two weeks and an affidavit in that regard shall be filed within a week from today. All

pending applications stand disposed of."

7. The Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the Government of NCT

of Delhi and Others was also dismissed by this Court on 10.03.2010.

8. Reliance is also placed of another decision of the learned Single

Judge of this Court in Sardar Paramjeet Singh vs. Govt. of NCT of

Delhi & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 4832/2007 decided on 29.04.2009. In this

case as well, the riot victim had migrated to Punjab, and thereafter

returned to Delhi after considerable time. The claim for rehabilitation

grant was rejected by both, the Punjab Government and the Govt. of

NCT of Delhi. Once again, the Court lamented at this state of affairs

which had caused immense prejudice to the claimant for whose benefit

the rehabilitation package had been formulated. Once again the Govt.

of NCT of Delhi was directed to make payment of the rehabilitation

grant of Rs. 2 lacs and the Govt. of NCT of Delhi was specifically

declared to be entitled to claim the said amount from the Government

of India in terms of the circular dated 16.01.2006.

9. Mr. A. S Chandhiok, learned ASG, who appears for the Union of

India, has opposed the petition by submitting that Clause (xii) of the

circular dated 16.01.2006 clearly provides that for becoming eligible

for rehabilitation grant, it is essential that the family should be still

living in the State to which it migrated on account of the 1984 riots.

The said grant would not be available to a victim's family who may

have returned back to the home State. Mr Chandhiok submits that this

circular was issued in the year 2006, whereas the riots had taken place

in the year 1984. The Government of India was conscious of the fact

that there were about 22000 such families who had migrated from one

State to another and had settled in the later State. He submits that

the interpretation as suggested by the petitioner, if adopted, would

open a Pandora's box and would put undue strain on the government's

resource which it had not foreseen while formulating the policy dated

16.01.2006. Mr. Chandhiok also places reliance on the decision of the

Jharkhand High Court in a batch of writ petitions including W.P.(C)

3748/2005 decided on 02.04.2008. In those proceedings, the

Government of India had produced before the Court the clarification

issued by it to the aforesaid Clause (xii), which stated that such

families which had temporarily migrated to Punjab, but had

subsequently returned to their original place, would not be entitled to

rehabilitation grant of Rs. 2 lac per family. Mr. Chandhiok submits that

the said clarification had been accepted and implemented by the

Court.

10. Mr. Chandhiok has also sought to draw a distinction

between the present cases and the one dealt with by the Division

Bench in LPA 109/2010 in the case of S. Swarn Singh Arora (supra).

He submits that in that case the riot victim was initially staying in the

State of Uttar Pradesh. He first migrated to the State of Punjab and

thereafter to Delhi. He submits that the victim did not go back to the

State of Uttar Pradesh which was his home State. He submits that it

was in those circumstances that the Division Bench had upheld the

grant of the rehabilitation grant to the victim.

11. Mr. Waziri, learned counsel for the Govt. of NCT of Delhi submits

that even if the Govt. of NCT of Delhi is of the view that the persons,

such as the petitioners, are entitled to be paid the said rehabilitation

grant, the Union of India is opposing the release the said amounts to

Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

12. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the

various decisions relied upon by the parties, as also examined the

circular dated 16.01.2006, I am of the view that there is merit in these

writ petitions and the petitioners are entitled to grant of rehabilitation

grant of Rs. 2 lacs per family, provided they otherwise are able to

satisfy the concerned authorities with regard to the genuineness of

their case. The families who migrated to other States on account of

the breaking out of the riots in the year 1984; settled there, and;

subsequently returned to Delhi after few years cannot be denied the

said rehabilitation grant merely on account of the fact that they

returned to Delhi subsequently after a few years.

13. The interpretation to Clause (xii) sought to be given by the

Union of India, in my view, is very constricted and narrow. The

purpose of granting the rehabilitation grant of Rs. 2 lac per family, on a

plain reading of Clause (xii), appears to be that families which had fled

from the riot affected areas in a given State to, either Punjab, or some

other State, and had settled down in the later State required support,

as their rehabilitation in the later State was unplanned, and such

persons had to flee for their lives without all their belongings, and

without any avocation or source of livelihood. Such families had to

restart their lives in the relocated State to find their feet. They had to

find jobs, avocations, fend for their children's education and mix with

people in a new environment, who may not, always, have been

conducive and sensitive to their needs and plight. It was to assuage

the difficulties that such families would have faced in the process of

rehabilitation, that the rehabilitation grant of Rs. 2 lacs per family was

granted under Clause (xii) of the circular dated 16.01.2006. The said

circular does not expressly state, and does not purport to exclude from

rehabilitation grant, such families which may have returned back to

their parent States after few years.

14. It would be a different matter if a family were to migrate from

the home State to another State, only for a few weeks or months, and

thereafter return back to the home State. But where a family has

migrated and lived in another State for a few years (in these cases at

least four years), such families obviously settled down in the migrated

States and remained there for substantial lengths of time, for which

they would be entitled to one time rehabilitation grant. The Govt. of

India has recognized the fact that such families, who relocated to

another State, are entitled to the said grant. Merely because such

families may have returned back after few years would not disentitle

them to the said grant.

15. The distinction sought to be drawn by the Union of India between

cases where the migrants did not return to the home State, and those

who did so after settling down in the other State has no nexus with the

object sought to be achieved, which is to provide rehabilitation grant to

those families which were uprooted from their home State because of

the riots and got rehabilitated in a State different from their home

State. This distinction is, therefore, arbitrary. What is relevant is that

the migrant family had the animus residendi to settle in the migrated

State when it migrated to the other State, and it settled down, as a

matter of fact, there for a considerable length of time.

16. The decision of the Jharkhand High Court relied upon by the

learned ASG does not advance the respondent's case, for the simple

reason, that the Jharkhand High Court has not interpreted Clause (xii)

of the aforesaid circular dated 16.01.2006, and has merely accepted

the self serving clarification issued by the Govt. of India. There is

absolutely no discussion or debate in the judgment of the Jhakhand

High Court as to whether Clause (xii) aforesaid would apply to cases of

the kind considered by this Court. Moreover, the classification was that

clause (xii) would not apply where the movement of the family from

the home state to the other state was "temporary". Where the family

had moved to another state and settled there for four long years

before returning to the home state, it cannot be said to be temporary.

The settlement was as good as permanent for all practical purposes

and clearly so in the context of clause (xii) of the letter dated

16.01.2006.

17. In my view, the aforesaid distinction made out in the case of S.

Swarn Singh Arora (supra), makes no difference whatsoever in the

light of the discussion above. Moreover, the subsequent decision in

Sardar Paramjeet Singh (supra), is a decision of the coordinate

bench of this Court with which I am in respectful agreement and see no

reason to differ with. The submission that the Union of India would not

have the resources to defray the grant to all those eligible under

clause (xii) cannot be accepted. It is for the Central Government to

make available the resources. Such an argument cannot justify

discriminatory or arbitrary treatment between similarly situated

persons.

18. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed with costs of Rs.

10,000/- in each petition. I direct the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to examine

the cases of each of these petitioners on merit, and if they are found to

be genuine, grant the rehabilitation grant of Rs. 2 lac per family. The

said examination be completed within the next two months and, if the

petitioners cases found to be genuine, the grant be disbursed within

one month thereafter. It shall be open to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to

claim reimbursement of the amounts disbursed to the petitioners from

the Central Government.

19. Petitions stand disposed of.

VIPIN SANGHI, J

FEBRUARY 28, 2012 mb