The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld an order to reclaim Rs 6 lakh from a Border Security Force (BSF) member who was found to have falsely claimed ex gratia relief due to the alleged deaths of six family members during the onset of militancy in 1993. The court determined that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to support his assertion that these family members were killed by militants, revealing instead that they had migrated to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).
While reviewing the BSF personnel’s appeal against the recovery order, Justice Rajnesh Oswal noted inconsistencies in the petitioner’s claims. In a report dated May 5, 1997, which was initiated based on the petitioner’s application, it was stated that all family members except one sister had died. However, the report did not clarify why compensation was granted solely to the petitioner while leaving out his surviving sister. The court’s order, issued on September 30, emphasized that the petitioner failed to prove any deaths in 1993 and expressed skepticism over the likelihood that someone whose relatives had died would wait four years before seeking compensation.
According to the court, the verification process for the claims began after a 1999 news article highlighted fraudulent compensation claims for individuals who were still alive in PoK. The BSF member had claimed that his relatives were killed during militant attacks in the village of Shalla Bathu in Kupwara in 1993. Following a police investigation, death certificates were issued, and a district committee approved ex gratia payments of Rs 1 lakh for each of the six purported deceased, amounting to a total of Rs 6 lakh, which the petitioner received in 1997.
The legitimacy of these payments came into question after the 1999 report suggested that funds were being disbursed to families of individuals who had actually moved to PoK. A subsequent inquiry revealed that the petitioner’s six relatives had indeed crossed into PoK and were alive, leading to the conclusion that the Rs 6 lakh relief had been obtained deceitfully. Consequently, recovery actions were initiated against him.
In 2022, authorities mandated that the Rs 6 lakh be deducted from the petitioner’s salary, and the BSF commenced this recovery in 30 installments starting in August 2023. The petitioner contested this decision in the high court, arguing that the relief had been sanctioned based on official verification and that initiating recovery after more than 25 years lacked a legitimate foundation.
Advocate Dar Khurshid, representing the petitioner, contended that the recovery proceedings were based solely on the assertion that the petitioner’s family members were alive in PoK, a claim that he argued was unsupported by any Indian investigative agency, which could not operate in PoK. Thus, he deemed the recovery efforts illegal.
Conversely, the state maintained that an inquiry had substantiated that the six family members had indeed migrated to PoK and that the BSF member had been afforded the chance to present his case before the inquiry officer. The court identified major discrepancies in the petitioner’s narrative regarding the alleged deaths of his relatives. One document referenced an incident from 1990, while the writ petition claimed the family members went missing due to militant violence in 1993.
The court noted that although the alleged events occurred in 1993, a police record of the incident was only created in March 1997, almost four years later, and death certificates were issued subsequently. It remarked that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that six family members had died in 1993 and found it unlikely that someone would remain inactive for four years after such a tragedy.
Furthermore, the court pointed out that no bodies of the supposed deceased were ever returned to the petitioner and questioned why, if six family members had indeed died, he did not take immediate action to determine their fates. The court also highlighted significant contradictions within the petitioner’s claims and noted that the record did not clarify why compensation was awarded solely to him when one sister was stated to be alive.
The court concluded that the petitioner had not proven the deaths of his six family members in 1993 and found evidence suggesting that the relief had been secured in collusion with local police and revenue officials. Addressing the petitioner’s assertion that he was denied a hearing prior to the recovery action, the court dismissed this claim, noting that he had appeared before the additional deputy commissioner, where his statements and those of other witnesses were recorded, and he did not challenge this in his responses.
Ultimately, the court determined that the absence of any remains of the purported deceased family members indicated that retaining the Rs 6 lakh would constitute unjust enrichment, as the basis for the relief had been established as unfounded.
