Terribly Suffered At The Hands Of Callous Administration: Delhi HC Directs Centre To Pay Interest On Delayed Compensation To 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Victim
The Delhi High Court directed the Centre to pay interest on delayed compensation to the victim of 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots on account that he and his family terribly suffered at the hands of rioters and callous administration.
Gurnam Singh, the victim had filed an appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge dismissing his writ petition on the ground that he is not entitled to an interest on ex-gratia compensation of Rs. 1 lakh awarded to him.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “… in the instant case, the appellant and his family terribly suffered at the hands of the rioters exactly forty (40) years ago and the appellant again suffered at the hands of an insensitive and callous administration and had to approach the Constitutional Courts four (4) times for redressal of his grievances. Since the Rehabilitation Policy itself was to be effected and implemented in a time bound manner, failure to do so, cannot be treated lightly. We are thus, of the considered opinion that in this case, the ex gratia compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- which has been released to the appellant on 8th April 2016 shall attract interest from the date of issuance of the Rehabilitation Policy dated 16th January, 2006.”
Advocate Monica Kapoor appeared for the appellant while Advocate Apoorv Kurup appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the appellant was the victim of Anti-Sikh Riots that had occurred on October 31, 1984 in the wake of the assassination of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The appellant claimed that his residence was ransacked and looted in November 1984. The appellant’s father filed an FIR under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 436, 201, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), complaining that his family had suffered a loss of Rs. 60,800/- due to looting by the mob.
Accordingly, the appellant filed an application before the Lieutenant Governor seeking payment of ex-gratia compensation. He kept on pursuing claim from one office to another but no compensation was awarded. He, therefore, filed a writ petition before the High Court praying that compensation of Rs. 6,08,000/- along with interest be awarded to him. The said petition was disposed of in August 2009, with a direction to the State, to set up a Screening Committee for considering his claim. In January 2010, his claim was rejected and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate also rejected his claim. Hence, he filed another writ petition and so on. As his claim was rejected, he filed an appeal.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “It is evident from a careful examination of the terms of para 4 that the disbursement under the Rehabilitation Policy, which also included enhancement to the extent of ten times the compensation assessed or paid earlier, was to be verified, assessed and disbursed in a time bound manner. In fact, on a closer scrutiny it is discernible that even the State Governments which were to make disbursals in certain instances were also to seek reimbursement of such expenditure from the Central Government by a stipulated date. Even more specific is the date stipulated for such reimbursement by the Central Government. This leads to the irresistible conclusion that the aforesaid policy of the year 2006 was to be implemented in a time bound manner.”
The Court added that though, there was no stipulation as to what would be the consequence of delay, yet, such beneficial policies, that too for rehabilitation of the 1984 riot victims, cannot be rendered meaningless.
The Court did not find any reason to refuse imposition of a reasonable interest on the delayed payment of ex gratia payment to the appellant.
“Resultantly, we hold that the appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with effect from 16th January, 2006, through till 8th April, 2016 when the appellant was handed over such sum by way of a cheque. The respondent no.1/Union of India is therefore, directed to calculate the interest component on the aforesaid sum and pay the same to the appellant within a period of six (6) weeks”, it therefore, directed.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the appeal and imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the Centre to be paid to the appellant within 6 weeks.
Cause Title- Gurnam Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6258-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Monica Kapoor
Respondents: Advocates Apoorv Kurup, Nidhi Mittal, SC Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Advocates Kartik Sharma, and Rishabh Srivastava.
