The Delhi High Court has recently issued notice on a plea filed by the son of a man who lost his life in the 1984 Delhi anti-Sikh riots.
A single-judge bench of Justice Rekha Palli heard the plea filed by one Pankaj Bakshi through Advocates Gagan Gandhi and Mohit Kaushik, who approached the High Court being aggrieved by the action of the Delhi Government in not implementing the order passed by the High Court on 27.11.2019 in a case titled ”Delhi Sikh Gurdwara management & Anr. Union of India & Ors.”.
The petitioner sought a direction to the Delhi government to provide employment to the petitioner as per the circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and compensate him for the loss of income to be calculated from 2006 till the date of joining.
It is pertinent to note that on 16.01.2006, a circular was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs directing state governments to sanction ex-gratia amount and other assistance to victims’ of 1984 riots in the form of compensation and employment. Thus, making the petitioner eligible to seek employment from the Government of NCT of Delhi, the petition states.
On 21.09.2020, the petitioner gave notice to the respondent, to provide employment and compensation to the petitioner in lieu of the order dated 27/11/2019 issued by the High Court. The respondent failed to reply to the aforementioned notice.
The petition is necessitated to protect the rights of the petitioner especially because the Government of Delhi even after representation by the petitioner did not initiate any action to provide employment to the petitioner. Considering the age of the petitioner, any further delay by the Delhi Government in providing the employment will be highly detrimental and prejudiced to the rights of the petitioner, alleged the petitioner.
Also Read: Allahabad High Court rejects anticipatory bail to sacked assistant teacher with fake marksheet
The petitioner is therefore filed the petition on the following grounds:-
A. Because the petitioner is a riot victim, who lost his parents in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
B. Because after the discussion on Report of Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry into 1984 riots in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, the central government vide dated 16/01/2006 by the Respondent No.2 (Ministry of Home Affairs) directed the state government ie the Respondent No.3 (Govt of NCT of Delhi) to provide employment and compensation to the family members of the riot victims. By this notification the petitioner became eligible for the employment and compensation that was to be provided by the respondent no.3.
C. Because even after the lapse of fifteen (15) years the respondent no.3 did not initiate any action to provide employment to the petitioner.
D. Because the High Court vide order dated 27.11.2019 directed the Respondents to follow their own circular dated 16/01/2006 issued by the Respondent no.2 to provide employment to the children/family members of the person who died in 1984 riots in lieu of order dated 27/11/2019 passed by the High Court in a Petition titled as “ Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management & Anr V Union of India & Ors.
Also Read: Covid-19: Yellow alert in Delhi under GRAP, night curfew from today from 10 pm to 5 am
E. Because the Respondent did not pass the speaking order elaborating the reasons as to why the claim of the petitioner is not covered by the circular dated 16/01/2006 or by rules, regulations and Government policy applicable to the facts of the case in the teeth of order dated 27/11/2019 in Writ Petition no.l1652/2018 titled as “ Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management & Anr V Union of India & Ors.
F. Because the Department of Revenue and the Services Department , Delhi are shifting the responsibility of taking any action on each other thereby making the Petitioner suffer.
G. Because the Petitioner would be deeply affected if the Respondent No.3 fails to provide the employment to the petitioner. The unexplained delay from the Respondents in providing the Petitioner with the employment causes mental stress, harassment and loss of income to the Petitioner who is already a riot victim in the light of covid-19 pandemic.
H. Because the purported act and conduct of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, whimsical, unreasonable, unjust, unfair and also in violation of the legal, fundamental and statutory rights of the Petitioner and are therefore liable to be intervened by the High Court