Ex-gratia relief claims must be determined per prevalent schemes and constitutional principles of non-discrimination.

The applicant’s husband, a Head Constable in the J&K Police, was injured in a grenade blast on September 17, 2019, while on duty.

Following the incident, an F.I.R. was registered, and the official was treated at 92 Base Hospital and SMHS Hospital, where he was eventually declared brought dead on October 28, 2019.

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for ex-gratia financial assistance amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/-, alleging that she was being discriminated against compared to other officials.

The respondents countered that substantial benefits, including Special Welfare Relief, Gratuity, G.P. Fund, and medical reimbursement, had already been provided, and the deceased’s son was appointed under SRO 43.

The respondents further contended that ex-gratia is not a legal right but a discretionary grant governed by specific policy conditions.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to ex-gratia financial assistance as a matter of legal right for the death of her husband while on duty.

2. Whether the denial of ex-gratia relief by the respondents constitutes a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution regarding non-discrimination and the "pick and choose" policy.

Government Order No. 723-GR (GAD) of 1990 dated 10-07-1990, which establishes that ex-gratia relief is not a legal entitlement or a right of the dependents but is granted under specific conditions.

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which requires the state to avoid arbitrary "pick and choose" methods and ensure equality in the exercise of discretionary powers.

The applicant argued that similar cases had received such relief and that the state must act without discrimination under Article 14.

The respondents relied on the 1990 Government Order to argue that the applicant had no vested legal right to the claim, especially since significant welfare benefits had already been disbursed.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant failed to provide specific references to identical cases where relief was granted.

The Tribunal determined that the administrative authorities should first evaluate the claim against existing schemes.

The court reasoned that if a scheme for ex-gratia relief exists, the petitioner’s case must be considered fairly and within a stipulated timeframe to ensure the mandate of law and entitlement is followed.

The respondents are ordered to consider and decide the case in accordance with the law and the applicant's entitlement within six weeks of receiving the order.

The court specifically held that if a relevant scheme for ex-gratia relief is prevalent, the applicant's case must be considered under such scheme.

All connected M.As were also disposed of.