Back
J&K High Court Dismisses BSF Personnel's Plea Against Recovery of ₹6 Lakh
The has dismissed a writ petition filed by Nazir Ahmad Mir, a personnel, challenging the recovery of ₹6 lakh in sanctioned in for the alleged deaths of six members of his family. Justice Rajnesh Oswal, presiding over the single bench, held that the relief was obtained fraudulently and that the petitioner failed to prove the deaths had occurred as claimed.
The Story of a Claim Unraveled
The petitioner, a BSF constable, claimed that in , during militant violence in village Shalla Bathu near the Line of Control, his father, mother, two brothers, and two sisters were killed. He was posted in Jammu at the time. After obtaining information, he lodged a report with , and death certificates were issued. In , a sanctioned of ₹1 lakh each for the six deceased persons, totaling ₹6 lakh, which was paid to the petitioner as the .
However, in
, a newspaper report titled
"Government gives away relief package for dead families living in PoK"
exposed that several families, including the petitioner's, had actually migrated to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). This triggered a verification exercise by the
, which in
concluded that the
had been "fraudulently drawn" by the petitioner. The report stated that all agencies, including security agencies, were misled. Consequently, the authorities initiated
against the petitioner, culminating in a
from the
in
directing recovery of ₹6 lakh from his salary in 30 installments.
The Petitioner's Arguments: No Fraud, No Hearing
The petitioner contended that the was sanctioned after a detailed investigation by the police and revenue authorities. He argued that he could not be faulted for the government's decision to grant the relief and that recovery after more than 25 years was arbitrary. He also claimed that he was not afforded an before the recovery order was passed. Additionally, he submitted that he had since superannuated and had a specially-abled child to support.
Respondents' Stand: Fraud Proved Through Inquiry
The respondent authorities—the , the , and the Divisional Commissioner—argued that an in-depth inquiry was conducted by the , in 2001. During this inquiry, the petitioner was called in person, his statement was recorded, and it was established that the family members had not died but had migrated to PoK. They also pointed to a communication from the , dated , which detailed how police and revenue officials colluded to fraudulently sanction the relief.
Court's Analysis: Inconsistencies and the Stench of Fraud
The High Court meticulously examined the record and found several glaring inconsistencies. The alleged incident occurred in , but the Daily Diary Report was entered at only on —a delay of nearly four years. The death certificates were issued in , also well after the alleged deaths. When the court specifically asked whether the bodies of the deceased family members were handed over to the petitioner, his counsel candidly admitted that no bodies were ever delivered.
“It strains credulity that the petitioner's family members allegedly passed away in , yet the petitioner remained silent for four long years without making any effort to ascertain their whereabouts,” Justice Oswal observed.
The court also noted contradictions in the petitioner's own pleadings. In one representation, he referred to the deaths occurring in a 1990 firing incident, while in the writ petition he claimed they went missing in . Additionally, while he claimed an FIR was registered, the record showed only a Daily Diary entry. Another curious point was that the report stated all family members except one sister were killed, yet the compensation was paid exclusively to the petitioner, with no explanation for excluding the surviving sister.
The court concluded that the petitioner, in connivance with the authorities concerned, managed to fabricate or push through his case for long after the alleged occurrence. “The petitioner has utterly failed to prove that six of his family members died in ,” the judgment read.
‘’: Legal Precedent Applied
The High Court relied on the 's recent ruling in Vishnu Vardhan v. State of U.P. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1501), which emphatically stated that “nothing obtained by fraud can be sustained, as .” The court quoted Lord Denning's famous dictum and reiterated that “.”
Applying this principle, the court held that the very basis of the grant was false, and allowing the petitioner to retain the amount would perpetuate . “The cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an in the hands of dishonest litigants,” Justice Oswal observed.
Claim Rejected
The petitioner's contention that he was not given an was also dismissed. The respondents had stated that a notice was issued to the petitioner to appear before the , in , and that his statement was recorded during the inquiry. The court noted that the petitioner did not file a rejoinder or affidavit disputing this claim, and therefore, it could not be held that the violated principles of .
Final Decision and Implications
The High Court found the writ petition devoid of merit and dismissed it. The recovery of ₹6 lakh from the petitioner's salary, as ordered by the BSF authorities, stands undisturbed. The judgment sends a strong message that benefits cannot be retained even after a long lapse of time, and that courts will not come to the aid of those who approach them . The ruling also underscores the importance of due inquiry and the need for authorities to act diligently when red flags are raised about fraudulent claims.
