SITARAM KHANDELWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before us had been granted pension under the Swatantrata Senani Samman Pension Scheme, 1972 under the order made on 19.2.1998. Thereafter, notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.10.2000 to show cause as to why pension granted to him should not be cancelled inasmuch as he had not placed any material in support of grant of pension under the Scheme. The petitioner sent reply to the same. He stated that he had produced an order-sheet of GR No. 761 of 1942 which showed that he was involved in some incident which occurred on 13.8.1942 and an order for recall of the warrant of arrest, if any, was passed on 27.4.1943 by the Magistrate and thus for nearly 8 months the warrant of arrest was in force. He also contended that after the incident took place on 13-8-1942 he went underground because a case had been registered and he was an active participant in the Quit India Movement and remained underground for a period of more than six months. He also contended that on account of paucity of material he could not be held not to have gone underground and was not an absconder. As a warrant of arrest or process had been issued it cannot be said that he was not a proclaimed offender. However, this explanation offered by the petitioner was not accepted by the Government. By order dated 18.6.2001, the order made earlier was recalled and it was made clear that it would be effective only from the date on which the order was made and the recovery for the past payments was waived. Several endorsements were made while sending copies of the said order to different authorities that certain other benefits arising thereto also should be withdrawn or cancelled. This order was challenged before the High Court unsuccessfully. Hence this petition under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in matters of this nature strict proof should not be insisted upon and relied upon a decision of this Court in Gurdial Singh V/s. Union of India. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the view taken by the authorities is perfectly justified as affirmed by the High Court.

(3.) We can appreciate the position that when the incident had taken place as early as on 13.8.1942 and proceedings in a criminal court had been initiated against him in that year, it may be difficult for the petitioner to make available the necessary material as is insisted upon under the relevant rules. Even so, that difficulty will not obviate the necessity to make available some material at least to draw such inference which will make him eligible for pension. Hence, when there is total paucity of material on record it is difficult for the authorities to continue with the pension that had been granted earlier. Therefore, we think the view taken by the authorities is justified. But this does not mean that the petitioner before us was not a swatantrata senani. Only on the ground that there was paucity of material no such inference could be drawn by the authorities. No interference with the order of the High Court is called for. The special leave petition is, therefore disposed of accordingly.