DINKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition whereby the petitioner claims payment of Freedom Fighters Pension w.e.f. August 1, 1980 or from the date of the filing of the writ petition. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows: The Government of India framed a scheme known as the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme for awarding pension to the freedom fighters who had made sacrifices during the freedom struggle. Subsequently in the year 1980 the scheme was revised and was renamed as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for short "the Scheme"). Pursuant to the scheme the petitioner applied to the Government for the grant of Freedom Fighters Pension to him. However, he did not succeed in getting the same which has resulted in filing the present writ petition on the grounds, inter alia, that the petitioner took part in the freedom struggle and because of his various activities he had to undergo sufferings and hardships.

(2.) It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was convicted under Ss. 33, 37 and 58(a)(b) of the Defence of Hyderabad Rules and sentenced to two years' RI by the Munsiff Magistrate at Nanded Suba Aurangabad on 15th Rehman 1357 Fasli for raising the slogans, namely, "State Congress Zindabad", "Hyderabad Cannot Be Independent State", "It Has To Merge Into Union Of India", "Kala Raj Khatam Karo Lokraj Kayam Karo and Swamy Ramanand Tirth Ki Jai". The petitioner was, however, released after a period of 37 days by the order of the Government, as is apparent from the imprisonment certificate (Annexure P-5 to the writ petition). In view of these facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to Freedom Fighters Pension as laid down in the decision of the Surja v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 366. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically refers to the following observations of the Supreme Court: "7. Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme of 1972 was renamed as "Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980". The brochure published by the Union of India indicates: "A person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment for six months in the mainland jails before independence is eligible to be admitted to the benefits of the pension". It has already been indicated that each of the petitioners had been convicted and was ordered to suffer imprisonment of more than six months. The petitioners' assertion that they did not claim remission has not been doubted or disputed. In the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to hold that each of the petitioners satisfied the condition for earning the benefit of pension and the fact that while undergoing sentence which was for a period of beyond six months remission had been granted and they were let off earlier would not take away their right to earn pension. Learned Attorney General appearing for the respondents has accepted this construction of the entitlement clause."

(3.) The upshot of the decision of the Supreme Court is that if a freedom fighter, who was convicted for a period beyond six months, was released before the expiry of the said period, he would still be entitled to pension provided he did not seek remission of the sentence.