Paramjit Kaur vs Union Of India And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 19770 P&H

                                                             Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145248




                                                                    2023:PHHC:145248




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                               AT CHANDIGARH
228

                                                                 CWP-4122-2021
                                                     Date of decision: 15.11.2023

PARAMJIT KAUR                                                          ......Petitioner

                                    VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS                                            .......Respondents



CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

                                    *****

Present: -    Ms. Veena Kumari, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

              Ms. Gehna Vaishnavi, Advocate
              for respondent No.1-Union of India.

              Mr. Teevar Sharma, Asst. A.G. Punjab
              for respondents No.2 and 4.

              Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate
              for respondent No.3.

                 *****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has claimed compensation in terms of the policy

dated 30.11.2017 (Annexure P-4) read with the policy dated 11.05.2018

(Annexure P-7) which prescribes minimum compensation of Rs.3 lacs for an

acid attack victim.

2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that as a

part of an interim compensation granted pursuant to the directions issued by

this Court in a Public Interest Litigation, the respondents have already

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145248

disbursed a compensation of Rs. 2 lacs, however, in terms of the policy of

2017, the minimum compensation assessed for an acid attack victim is Rs. 3

lacs. She argues that the remaining Rs. 1 lac is yet to be disbursed to her.

Reference is made by the petitioner to the judgment passed by this Court in

CWP-20477 of 2017 titled as "Suman and another versus Union of India

and others" decided on 10.05.2018 to consider that the social welfare

schemes have been formulated to ameliorate the grievance of the deprived

section of the society and compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lac from the

Prime Minister National Relief Fund Scheme was ordered to be given even

though the occurrence in question had taken prior to the notification of the

scheme. The relevant extract of the said judgment reads thus:

"To my mind, in a social welfare state where the Government of India is trying to ameliorate the grievance of the deprived section of the Society, declining the payment of compensation of Rs.1 lac from the Prime Ministers National Relief Fund Scheme only on the ground that the occurrence is prior to the decision taken by the Government of India is not justified. Therefore, I hold the petitioners entitled to Rs.1 lac each from the Prime Ministers National Relief Fund Scheme and direct respondent No.1 to make the payment of the said amount to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of "Anju Vs. State of Haryana and others" 2016(2) RCR (Criminal) 794, which was also a case of an acid attack victim. In the said case, all the policies of the Government were thoroughly discussed besides noticing the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Parivartan Kendra Vs. Union of India" 2016(1) RCR (Criminal) 336. Respondents No.2

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145248

& 3 are thus further directed to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Anju (Supra) and grant them necessary compensation/relief, if they are found entitled to it. The necessary order shall be passed either by respondent No.2 or respondent No.3 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is needless to mention that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, which has been enhanced in the case of petitioner No.2, shall also be paid to her within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

3. Counsel for the respondents have contended that the Scheme of

30.11.2017 was notified at later point of time and was to be effected from

the date of its notification and as such, the benefits admissible under the said

scheme cannot be extended to the petitioner. However, the ratio of the

judgment passed in CWP-20477 of 2017 is not disputed.

4. In the given circumstances of the case and considering the

equities in favour of the petitioner, I allow the present writ petition. The

respondents are directed to release the remaining compensation of Rs. 1 lac

as per the scheme notified on 30.11.2017 to the petitioner within a period of

06 weeks from a receipt of certified copy of this order. The question of law

shall, however, be kept open.

                                                 (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
NOVEMBER 15, 2023                                      JUDGE
Vishal Sharma


                     Whether speaking/reasoned         :      Yes/No
                     Whether Reportable                :      Yes/No




                                                            Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:145248

                                        3 of 3