news details |
|
|
| HC sets aside order rejecting compensation to terror victim’s family | | 2003 Poonch Attack | |  Early Times Report
Jammu, Feb 20: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside an order rejecting compensation to the family of a woman killed in a 2003 terrorist attack in Poonch district, holding that delay cannot be used to deny relief to victims of terrorism.
According to the details available Justice M A Chowdhary directed the authorities to reassess the claim of the bereaved family in accordance with the Centre’s scheme for assistance to civilian victims of terrorist violence.
The case relates to an attack on July 27, 2003, in Surankote area of Poonch, in which terrorist entered a house, assaulted a Special Police Officer and shot dead her 28-year-old daughter. An FIR was registered in connection with the incident under charges including murder and arson.
The family had received Rs 1 lakh as ex gratia relief at the time. They later sought the balance compensation of Rs 4 lakh.
In 2016, the High Court had asked the District Development Commissioner, Poonch, to consider their claim. However, the request was rejected in 2017 on the ground of limitation.
Challenging the rejection, the petitioners argued that the deceased was an innocent civilian and that compensation schemes for terror victims are welfare measures that should not be denied on technical grounds.
The court observed that constitutional courts, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, are empowered to grant appropriate relief to address injustice. It said authorities should not mechanically reject claims of terror victims solely on limitation without examining eligibility under applicable schemes.
Referring to the 2019 revised central scheme, the court noted that prior ex gratia payments do not bar further assistance and that timelines can be relaxed in deserving cases.
Holding the rejection order to be unsustainable, the court quashed it and directed the authorities to reconsider the claim afresh in accordance with the scheme. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
