RAMPYARIBAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a widow of late Shri Babu Singh Rajput who, allegedly, was a Freedom Fighter. The main grievance is that the widow i.e. the petitioner is not being granted the Freedom Fighter Pension although she is entitled to the same under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. It is alleged that late Shri Babu Singh participated in the Hyderabad Freedom Movement in 1947-48. The scheme specifies the persons who are eligible for the Samman Pension. Paragraph 2.3 of the salient features of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said scheme) relates to persons, who on account of their participation in their freedom struggle remained underground for more than six months. Such persons, subject to their complying with the conditions mentioned in paragraph 2.3 of the Scheme, are eligible for the Samman Pension. It is the petitioner's contention that her late husband was such a person who, on account of his participation in the Hyderabad Freedom Struggle, remained underground for more than six months and in respect of him though the detention order was issued such order was not served. Therefore, he fell under category `c' of paragraph 2.3 of the said Scheme. The Scheme itself provides that the claim of underground suffering would be considered subject to furnishing of the following evidence:-

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is no documentary evidence. So condition (a) will not be fulfilled. However, the petitioner's case falls under condition (b). All that is required in this case is that in case the records of the relevant period was not available, secondary evidence in the form of a Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) from a prominent freedom fighter who has proven jail suffering of a minimum two years and who happened to be from the same administrative unit is to be provided and the same could be considered provided the State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned, after due verification of the claim and its genuineness, certifies that documentary evidences from the official records in support of the claimed sufferings were not available. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the two affidavits that he has filed which are at pages 22 and 24 of the paper book Shri Kondiba and Shri Rajendra Tulsiram Sarangdhar should suffice for the purposes of establishing that the petitioner's husband had been underground for more than six months. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the two affidavits are of persons who themselves remained underground from December 1947 to September, 1948 as indicated in the affidavit themselves. This would, therefore, not be in compliance with the provisions of the Scheme itself which require a Personal Knowledge Certificate from a prominent freedom fighter who has proven jail suffering of minimum of two years. Such a certificate has not been provided by the petitioner and in such eventuality, it would not be possible for the respondent to ascertain as to whether the case of the petitioner is genuine or not.

(3.) It is pertinent to note that earlier a writ petition being CW 2407/1999 had been filed before this very Court by the said petitioner for the same relief. The said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to approach the respondent with such further evidence as may found. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty by an order dated 2.5.2000. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation dated 11.9.2000 a copy whereof is at page 26 of the paper book. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that despite the filing of the said representation, no order accepting or rejecting the representation has been passed or communicated to the petitioner.