[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs Jayakumari on 9 February, 2026
W.A.No.2522 of 2025 1
2026:KER:10604
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 20TH MAGHA, 1947
WA NO. 2522 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.01.2025 IN WP(C) NO.19670 OF 2014 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW
DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES,
MAHANIDEN, SHALAYA ASSAM RIFLES, SHILLONG, PIN - 793000
3 DIRECTORATE GENERAL RESETTLEMENT
RESETTLEMENT & WELFARE DIRECTORATE, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
WEST BLOCK IV, R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110066
4 WELFARE AND REHABILITATION BOARD (WARB),
11ND FLOOR, F WING, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110011
BY ADV SHRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
BY ADV.CRISTY THERESA SURESH
RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO.5:
1 JAYAKUMARI,
W/O KATE HARIKUTTAN NAIR, 'RETNAMMA BHAVAN', KUNNATHUNADA,
KRA 55-1, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
683565
2 VISHNU,S/O LATE HARIKUTTAN NAIR, 'RETNAMMA BHAVAN',
KUNNATHUNADA, KRA 55 -1, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 683565
W.A.No.2522 of 2025 2
2026:KER:10604
3 VEENA,D/O LATE HARIKUTTAN NAIR, 'RETNAMMA BHAVAN',
KUNNATHUNADA, KRA 55 -1, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 683565
4 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT - II ,
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SAINIK WELFARE) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADV SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY R1 TO R3
BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.11.2026, THE
COURT ON 09.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.2522 of 2025 3
2026:KER:10604
Judgment
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Heard C.M.Appln.No.1 of 2025 for condonation of delay. The
appeal has been filed with a delay of 215 days. Having perused the
reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application
for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has
been made out. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal
is taken up for final hearing.
2. The present intra court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala
High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 27.01.2025 passed
in WP(c) No.19670/2014 whereby the learned Single Judge has
allowed the Writ Petition.
2026:KER:10604
3. The appellants herein were respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the
Writ Petition whereas the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein who were
the petitioners in the Writ Petition.
FACTS
4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are the
legal heirs of the deceased employee, late Harikuttan Nair, Ex
No.2200733, Rifleman (General duty) enrolled in Assam Rifles on
19.09.1984. The deceased employee while in service in 22 Assam
Rifles received multiple and grievous injuries due to gun shots
during an encounter with undergrounds-National Socialist
Council of Nagaland (Issai-Muviah) at Tengnoupal (Manipur) on
5.9.1994. He was extended medical treatment at Military Hospital
(Eastern Command), Kolkata. Despite a number of major
surgeries, he could not recover fully and he was not in a position
to do any physical work, as a result he was rendered completely
handicapped and was medically boarded out from the services of
2026:KER:10604
Assam Rifles with 100% disability pension with effect from
01.12.1998. The deceased employee was granted disability
pension and invalid pension at the rate of Rs.9,196/- per month.
Besides he was also granted other pensionary benefits such as
commutation of pension Rs.35,315/-, Gratuity amounting to
Rs.28,209, saving benefit of Assam Rifles Group Insurance Scheme
Rs.15,125/- and balance of General Provident Fund Rs.29,096/-.
4.1 Despite treatment, the husband of the first respondent
could not survive and died on 6.5.2014 due to gunshot injuries.
While Harikuttan Nair was alive, he had filed O.P.No.5713 of 2003
before this Court. Thus, the same was decided finally vide order
dated 27.09.2005 by passing the following order:
"....the physical condition of the petitioner is such that due
consideration should be paid by the competent authority and
appropriate reliefs granted to him as expeditiously as possible. In
ground No.C of the writ petition it is averred that petitioner's life
was kept waiting for the benefits due to him and he is struggling
hard to educate his children and even to provide them with food.
The fact that petitioner suffered severe injuries at the hands of
anti-national elements while he was on active duty obliges the
2026:KER:10604
authorities to reasonably compensate him so as to enable him to
lead a life which is not extremely miserable. The respondents
should grant appropriate reliefs to him taking into consideration
all relevant aspects and the present situation in which the
petitioner is put, on account of the injuries".
"There shall be a direction to the first respondent to take up
for consideration Exts.P1 to p3 and to pass appropriate orders in
the light of the above observations made, as expeditiously as
possible, in any event, within two months on receipt of a copy of
the judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment
before the first respondent for appropriate action."
4.2 Thereafter the appellants herein taking into consideration
the observations of this Court came to the conclusion while
deciding the representations that ex-gratia payment for
disability in counter insurgency operations was not covered
under existing rules. As per the rules, the provision of ex-gratia
payment is applicable only in the case of fatal casualties during
counter insurgency operations, therefore, he was not eligible for
grant of ex-gratia payment of Rs.5 lakhs. Even the appellants had
considered the directions issued by this Court in
O.P.No.5713/2003 and had passed a reasoned speaking order
2026:KER:10604
dated 14th February 2007 clearly stating the reasons as to why the
deceased employee would not get the benefit as claimed. Late
Harikuttan Nair did not challenge Ext.R2(a) dated 14th February
2007 at any point of time. So far as the grant of ex-gratia
payment to the families of the individual employees is
concerned, the Government of India, Ministry of Home affairs,
New Delhi vide circular dated 28th August 1993, only permits
grant of ex-gratia to the personnels who are in employment.
4.3 In the instant case, Harikuttan Nair died after 16 years of
having been boarded out in the year 1994. He died in 2014.
Therefore, he was not eligible for grant of ex-gratia payment.
Being aggrieved, the respondents herein filed the impugned Writ
Petition and it was allowed. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed
the present Writ Appeal.
2026:KER:10604
CONTENTION OF APPELLANTS
5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the
learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition, in as
much as Ext.R2(a) dated 14.02.2007 which considered grant of
recommendations with regard to monetary compensations,
employment and allotment of gas agency having been rejected.
Even for grant of ex-gratia payment, the deceased employee was
not eligible. The family members approached this Court in 2014
after rejection of the claim in the year 2007 which is huge delay.
In view of the rejection of the claim much earlier in the year 2007,
the learned single judge without taking into consideration all
these things which were specifically pleaded in the counter
affidavit came to the conclusion that the respondents herein are
eligible for the claim and allowed the writ petition. In view of the
aforesaid, the order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set
aside and the Writ Appeal may be allowed.
2026:KER:10604
CONTENTION OF RESPONDENTS
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that
the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the Writ Petition.
No case of interference is made out at this stage. Hence, this Writ
Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard Smt.Christy Theresa Suresh, the learned counsel for
the appellants, Sri Suman Chakravarthy, the learned counsel for
respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, the learned
Government Pleader for respondent No.4.
ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION
8. On perusal of the records of the case, it is seen that the claim
put forth in the writ petition by the respondents have already
been addressed by the appellants herein and having been
rejected vide order dated 14.02.2007, Ext.R2(a), as well as
2026:KER:10604
rejection of ex-gratia payment, the same issue could not have
been reagitated by the family members of the deceased, that too
after a period of seven years without there being any explanation
for the delay.
8.1 So far as the recommendations of the authorities with
regard to monetary compensation as well as employment is
concerned, as envisaged in Ext.P1 order dated 5th March 1999, it
could not be granted to the deceased employee since he was 100%
disabled and subsequently died. So far as the allotment of gas
agency is concerned, that was also taken up with the Executive
Director, Oil Corporation Committee, New Delhi. However, the
request was turned down by the Petroleum Planning & Analysis
Cell vide order dated 16.08.2007, Ext.R2(c). Admittedly, the order
dated 14.02.2007, Ext.R2(a) was never challenged. The learned
Single Judge did not consider the order Ext.R2(a) in spite of the
same having been pleaded in the counter affidavit. Accordingly,
2026:KER:10604
we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the
learned single judge cannot be allowed to stand and the same is
hereby set aside. The writ Petition stands dismissed. As a
consequence, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
css/
