Uttarakhand High Court
Hon'Ble Sharad Kumar Sharma vs State Of on 14 January, 2021
CLCON No. 18 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing
Counsel assisted by Mr. J.S. Bisht,
Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand.
The petitioner before this Court, in
this Contempt Petition is a war widow. As
per the finding, which has been recorded
by the judgment rendered by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court on 4th
November, 2020, in Writ Petition No. 1139
of 2020 (M/S), Durga Koranga Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others, she has invoked
the writ jurisdiction praying for that she
may be granted an ex-gratia payment,
which she was otherwise also entitled to
be paid to her in pursuance to the
Government Order issued by the State of
Uttarakhand on 5th March, 2014, whereby,
the provision for providing the ex-gratia
payment of Rs.10 lacs, has been made
entitled to be received by the war widow
of the martyrs.
Factually, in the case at hand, the
husband of the petitioner, admittedly, had
met with the sad demise while
maneuvering in the counter insurgency
operation at Naushera, District Rajouri,
Jammu & Kashmir, and he met with the
sad demise on 17th April, 2002. The
applicability of the Government Order
dated 5th March, 2014, which
contemplates for the grant of an ex-gratia
payment has been made retrospectively
effective and applicable by virtue of the
judicial precedence which has been
rendered by the Division Bench of this
Court, which was subsequently, stood
affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, with
the dismissal of the SLP of the State on
26th November, 2018. By the judgment
dated 4th November, 2020, the petitioner
was held to be entitled to be paid with the
ex-gratia payment and the compliance was
directed to be made within a period of six
weeks.
The petitioner contends that on the
receipt of the certified copy of the
judgment which was passed by this Court
on 04.11.2020, he had served with the
notices on the respondents on 20th
November, 2020, but despite of the said
fact, the benefit of the ex-gratia payment
as she was entitled to receive under the
Government Order, was not paid to her till
date. Hence, the Contempt Petition was
filed by the petitioner.
This Court is pained to observe that
the martyr of the country and the manner
in which the State is treating their
dependents or war widows, it is very
sadistic and rather this Court was
contemplating to take stringent action
against the respondent, whose personal
appearance was called upon today, as to
why the remittance of the amount as
directed by the judgment dated
01.11.2020, was not made.
The respondents are present in
person today. They tried to purge the
contempt by seeking time for taking an
appropriate action and as usual, a
common stand, which was taken was that
they have to undergo certain procedural
formalities. Undertaking of procedural
formalities cannot be a reason to decline
or delay the welfare benefits, which is
entitled to be received by the war widows
and martyrs who have sacrificed
themselves for us, and atleast, the citizen
of this country should have some respect
to the army personnel and in particular
their war widows. Hence, this Court was
inclined to take the official, into custody,
i.e. the Additional Secretary today, but
since he had made a statement that he
would be complying the said order by the
end of the day, the matter was deferred.
The matter was kept pending and
directed to be taken at 4:00 P.M. When
the matter was taken up at 4:00 P.M., the
learned Chief Standing Counsel, who is
present before this Court, had placed
before this Court a letter No. 2015/Sahid
Kosh Anudan/Budget Aabanton/2020-21
dated 14th January, 2021, whereby the
respondents have annexed the document
No. 6001/Bank/2020-21 dated 14th
January, 2021, whereby a cheque No.
540830 dated 14th January, 2021, for an
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- has been
credited into the account of the petitioner.
Exclusively on that pretext, that
since she has already been paid the
amount, this Court is avoiding to pass any
stringent order against the respondent,
including, putting him behind the bar. But
since the order has been complied with,
the Contempt Petition is closed. Notices
issued to the respondents are hereby
discharged.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 14.01.2021
Shiv
