The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that petitioners seeking enhancement of ex-gratia compensation under a discontinued rehabilitation scheme are not barred by cut-off dates meant for fresh claims. This ruling reinforces the principle that administrative remedies for relief enhancement must be evaluated on their own merits, even after scheme closure.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Smt. Gurcharan Kaur Ratra, a victim of communal violence, sought enhanced ex-gratia compensation for the loss of her commercial property. She contended that the compensation awarded under the State’s rehabilitation package was inadequate and sought a tenfold increase, along with 12% interest, as per a 2006 circular. She also requested that her representation, dated 2020, be decided in light of the broader rehabilitation policy.
Procedural History
- The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 18593 of 2020 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur.
- She cited a pending similar petition, WP No. 23857/2019, filed by another riot victim, seeking identical relief.
- The Court noted a coordinate bench’s earlier order dated 21 August 2024 in Pradeep Singh Bhatia v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which addressed a nearly identical claim.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- A writ of certiorari directing reassessment of ex-gratia compensation at ten times the original amount
- Payment of 12% annual interest on the enhanced amount, with credit for sums already paid
- Direction to decide her representation under the rehabilitation package
- Connection of her petition with the pending WP No. 23857/2019 for uniform adjudication
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a cut-off date for receiving fresh claims under a discontinued rehabilitation scheme bars a petitioner from seeking enhancement of compensation already awarded, where the claim is not for a new entitlement but for revision based on inadequacy.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the Pradeep Singh Bhatia judgment, arguing that the 30 June 2012 cut-off date in the Central Government’s circular applied only to new claims, not to requests for enhancement of existing awards. He emphasized that the petitioner’s representation was a plea for reconsideration, not a fresh application, and thus fell outside the scope of the temporal restriction.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the rehabilitation scheme had been formally closed as of 30 June 2012, and no further claims - whether fresh or enhanced - could be entertained thereafter. It argued that allowing such claims would undermine administrative finality and open floodgates to litigation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language of the 2014 circular issued by the Government of India, which explicitly stated that "no fresh claims be received after 30.06.2012." The Court distinguished between "fresh claims" and "requests for enhancement" of previously awarded compensation. It held that the petitioner was not seeking a new entitlement but a revision of an existing award deemed insufficient.
"Petitioner is not making any fresh claims but has preferred representation for enhancement of compensation and to pay him ex-gratia amount also. In view of same, case of petitioner will not be covered under para 4 of circular and cut-off date will not be applicable in case of petitioner."
The Court adopted the reasoning from Pradeep Singh Bhatia, noting that administrative discretion must be exercised reasonably when a claimant demonstrates genuine hardship and a legitimate basis for revision. It emphasized that the circular’s purpose was to prevent new applications, not to deny redress for inadequate prior awards. The Court further clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the enhancement request, only on its maintainability.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that the cut-off date for fresh claims under the rehabilitation scheme does not bar a request for enhancement of ex-gratia compensation. It directed the State to decide the petitioner’s representation within 90 days, applying the same reasoning as in Pradeep Singh Bhatia.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Enhancement Claims Are Not Fresh Claims
- Practitioners may now argue that requests for revision of compensation, based on inadequacy or changed circumstances, are distinct from new applications under closed schemes
- Administrative authorities cannot reject such representations solely on the ground of a cut-off date
- The burden shifts to the State to justify denial on substantive grounds, not procedural timelines
Administrative Discretion Must Be Reasonable
- Authorities must evaluate enhancement requests on their merits, including hardship, nature of loss, and prior award adequacy
- Blanket rejections based on scheme closure violate principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution
- Courts will intervene where discretion is exercised arbitrarily or mechanically
Precedent Binding Across Coordinate Benches
- Coordinate benches of the same High Court are bound by reasoned orders on identical legal issues
- This judgment reinforces the doctrine of consistency in judicial administration
- Practitioners should cite Pradeep Singh Bhatia as binding authority in similar rehabilitation cases
