The court emphasized that a person claiming a benefit under a policy obtains a legal right for its enforcement if the claim is within the stated policy, and the State should not require additional certification beyond how the relevant authority has treated the injury.

K.Kannan, J.

1. The petitioner seeks for a direction for payment of an ex gratia amount from the State of Haryana vide policy issued through the Chief Secretary to Haryana that enables a person reported killed/missing/prisoners of war/disabled E.S.M. (Ex Servicemen) during various operations. The petitioner has suffered 100% disability in an accident while he was in service in Kargil area. The claim was made by invoking clauses of eligibility that the policy delineates. To our case would be relevant Clause 7(a) and (f), which are reproduced as under :-

"a) The families of personnel killed or missing and disabled personnel as a result of clash with hostile foreign nationals on J&K cease fire line or Ladakh or on/across the borders of India with foreign countries.

b) to e) ..................................

f) Families of personnel killed/disabled as a result of M.T. (Mechanical Transport) accident in operational area and covered by the Army Act except where the court of enquiry has blamed the individual for either negligence or self infliction or attempt to suicide."

The policy which was introduced originally in the year 1994 has undergone some changes in so far as it increased the ex gratia payment to Rs. 5 to Rs. 6 lacs. The petitioner has applied for ex gratia payment, relying on a certificate that the Additional Directorate General of Manpower/MP 5(B), Adjutant Generals Branch, New Delhi has issued mentioning the cause of disability. The certificate that has been issued to whomsoever it may concern states as under:-

".... The officers disability has been assessed by Invaliding Medical Board for 100% for life and the casualty has been classified as Battle Casualty vide letter No. 12812/AG/ OW/OPR/MP5(D) dated 10 Sep 2007."

2. Although there has been no formal order of rejection of petitioners claim, the stand for the Government for its non-payment is known through the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent. It is contended that the cause of the injury was a subject of enquiry by the Army and it was borne out through the enquiry report that the petitioner and another suffered injuries in a motor transport accident and the negligence was on the part of the defence personnel. It is also stated that the injuries were not during any heroic act to enable the petitioner to make a claim.

3. Ex-gratia payment is not always, paradoxically, an act of charity. It is invariably supported by reasonable policy so that the State funds are not squandered by wrongful consideration. If the policy itself is in challenge, it shall definitely become possible for a Court to see the reasonableness of the policy. However, when the policy consideration is not in challenge, a person that makes a claim under the terms of policy definitely obtains a legal right for its enforcement and all that would be necessary to show is that the claim is within the four corners of the stated policy. In this case, the eligibility for a person to make the claim obtains specifically through Clause (f) which we have already extracted above that enables a person to claim the benefit arising out of disability through a motor transport accident in an operational area covered by the Army except when the Court of enquiry has blamed the individual for negligence or self-infliction or attempt to suicide. It can be noticed that it is not the stand of the government that there has been any self-inflicted or a wanton negligence, though in the written statement, it is stated out of the blue, as it were, that the negligence was on the part of the defence personnel. On the other hand, the text of the Court of enquiry, which has been placed as document shows that the injury sustained by the petitioner was attributable to military service. The act of heroism which the statement claims that the petitioners act did not evoke, is in some sense a wrongly exaggerated expression. I do not see from the terms of the policy that the person must have been there actually plac