'Either State Grant Award With Money, Or We'll Direct' : Supreme Court To UP Govt On 83 Yr Old Ex-Constable's Plea For Gallantry Award

In an 83-year-old retired Constable's plea for authorities to act on the recommendation for the Gallantry Award, the Supreme Court today granted last opportunity to the State of Uttar Pradesh to confer Gallantry Award on the petitioner, coupled with a 'respectable' financial amount.

The Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing petitioner-Ram Autar's challenge to an Allahabad High Court order, which denied his prayer on the ground that he had approached belatedly.

Senior Advocate Rana Mukherjee, acting as Amicus Curiae, informed the Court that pursuant to previous hearings, the petitioner had been given a commendation certificate. However, he was expecting some monetary reward as well.

Referring to the status report filed by the State of UP, the Amicus explained the authorities' rationale behind not giving the petitioner anything. "They say that no records are available in their office..." he said, before quoting a document which read, "in this instance, no decision was made to confer Gallantry Award likely due to the case not meeting the required standard. Consequently, the investigation remained pending at that time and the records are now unavailable...".

He also drew attention of the Court to a Government of India circular, as per which some amount of money is also to be given in such cases. Hearing him, Justice Kant recalled,

"In the cases [falling under] Swatantrata Sangram Pension Scheme, Government of India...they knew that records are not easily available now...Most of the people, particularly from north India, they were lodged in Lahore and other jails, which had gone to Pakistan side...so the records are not readily available. They have said that all people who were contemporary at that time, those who were associated with, they give affidavit."

Calling the UP government's statements "vague", the judge questioned a counsel appearing for the state as to what the petitioner, at his advanced age, is supposed to do with only a commendation certificate. "In this old age, what will he do with the certificate? Hang on the wall, that's all", the judge commented.

Referring to the record, Justice Datta observed that the state government had statements of elderly villagers who were alive at the time of the incident (in 1986) and asked what more evidence was required: "They said that they had heard about this police encounter...one of them wanted to rob a bus and the passengers...one of them was found dead. What more evidence do you require? And if you have kept the matter pending for so long, why should he be deprived?"

Ultimately, the bench asked the counsel appearing for UP to convey to the standing counsel that if state government does not do anything, then the Court will pass an order. "We have already made up our mind what amount we will award. Maybe if you will award some, even slightly less than that, we might not react to that. Because you would have voluntarily done that."

The order was dictated thus: "Last opportunity is granted to the state authorities for conferment of Gallantry Award on the petitioner, which must include a respectable financial amount also". State of UP was directed to respond within a week's time.

Background

The petitioner, formerly a police constable, was recommended for Gallantry award by the Superintendent of Police, Banda on August 3, 1989. In 2023, he approached the High Court with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus for action on the recommendation, claiming that he had made representations to the authorities repeatedly.

On perusing the record, the High Court did not find any "genuine reason" for the delay exhibited in the matter. "It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court as well as by this court that if the litigant is not vigilant to his rights and has been sitting back for no justifiable reason, he may not be permitted to invoke equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India," it said.

Taking note of the petitioner's age, the High Court further commented that he was "not going to gain any thing in service period on account of a police medal" even if awarded at this stage.

However, considering the petitioner's "act of bravery in saving the public by killing a dacoit" and the fact that he was recommended for the Gallantry award, the top Court issued notice.

Case Title: Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).26568/2023