Qaiser Rashid Khan, J.--Through the petition in hand the petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to pay Rs, 600000/- as damages of the vehicle/ Tractor to the petitioner and that the refusal of respondents for the payment of compensation be declared as illegal, arbitrary and without lawful authority.
2. In line with the contents of his writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was the owner of Tractor (Fiat 640) bearing Registration No, SGK 1527 purchased by him for a sum of Rs, 600000/-; that during military operation the said Tractor was parked in the Hujra of the petitioner in Tehsil Safi Qandari Area and the same was burnt by the Army personnel without any reason; that the petitioner approached Respondents No, 5 and 6 for the compensation / damages of the Tractor who onward forwarded his application to Respondent No, 7 but till date no action has been taken on the request of the petitioner; that Respondents No, 7 and 8 are legally bound to pay compensation to the petitioner having suffered a colossal loss resulting from military action against terrorists for no fault on the part of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel representing the Political Agent Mohmand Agency (Respondent No, 5) fully supported the stance of the petitioner and stated in unequivocal words that the compensation case of the petitioner was duly recommended by the Political Agent Mohmand Agency but now the ball is squarely in the Court of the high-ups of the FATA Disaster Management Authority (FDMA) who are taking shelter under the Compensation Policy.
4. The learned AAG also held on to the comments furnished by the FATA Disaster Management Authority and contended that the Compensation Policy was notified on 7.5.2013 and as the petitioner had sustained loss prior to the enforcement of the Policy, therefore, he cannot be benefited from the same as the Policy was to take effect from 7.5.2013 and that too, with immediate effect.
' Arguments heard and available record perused.
5. All that we can gather from the available record and arguments of the learned counsel for the parties including the learned AAG is that the petitioner too, was the victim of the insurgency which took the entire Mohmand Agency by storm and as far as the claim of the petitioner regarding the destruction of his vehicle is concerned, the same is admitted by the authorities. The only argument forwarded on behalf of the FDMA is viz the Compensation Policy governing compensation for disaster affected of FATA notified vide Notification No, FS/FDMA/ Compensation Policy/2013 dated 7.5.2013 albeit, with the in built phrase "with immediate effect" which by the FDMA interpretation takes the petitioner out of the ambit of the Policy. We are neither persuaded nor impressed but certainly amused with such myopic approach and of course interpretation of the Policy. We can at best term the promulgation of the Policy on 7.5.2013 as a late realization on the part of the authorities that be to alleviate the woes and sufferings of the helpless and hapless people of FATA who had no choice while becoming victims of the circumstances thrust upon them. However, we understand that the Policy should not be meant to compensate only those persons who have come to a certain loss after the promulgation of the Policy and the others hailing from FATA who too, sustained losses but prior to the enforcement of the Policy would only go for a song.
6. Resultant, we allow this writ petition in terms that the petitioner too; is entitled to the compensation amount as per the Compensation Policy. The Compensation Policy of the government dated 7.5.2013 being beneficial shall have retrospective effect for those persons who come within the scope and benefit provided therein and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compensation amount in respect of the destroyed vehicle under the Policy at the earliest, but certainly not later than two months.