CHHOTUBHAI H L PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the parties. The petitioner made application on 20th March 1981 to respondent No. 2 for grant of Samman Pension as provided under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, which was formerly known as Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972. The petitioner claimed Samman Pension on the basis of his underground activities for more than six months. Copy of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme,' 1980, has been produced by the petitioner at annexure-F to the petition. A copy of the application submitted by him has also been produced at annexure-A to the petition. In support of his claim the petitioner filed affidavits of veteran freedom fighters, copies of which have been submitted along with the writ petition. These are affidavits of Shri Jugatrambhai Chimanlal Dave, Shri Kikubhai Jagannath Pathak and Shri Makanjibhai Patel. This application filed by the petitioner has been forwarded by respondent No. 2 to respondent No.l. Along with the affidavits of veteran freedom fighters, the petitioner further submitted his own affidavit and extract from Surat Zilla Sevadal Itihas, letter of Collector, Surat and that of the Government of Gujarat, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, dated 17- 9-1973.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 vide his letter dated 5-11-1981, asked the petitioner to explain about his underground activities, which have been explained by the petitioner vide his letter dated 14- 11-1981 produced at annexure-C. Respondent No. 2, vide his letter dated 14-5-1985, intimated the petitioner that his claim is not acceptable as he has not produced satisfactory evidence relating to his claim on the basis of underground suffering during the freedom movement, and also on the ground that respondent No. 1 has not recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of pension. Respondent No. 1, on further approach by the petitioner refused to consider his case on the ground of nonproduction of record proving that the petitioner went underground during the Quit India Movement in August, 1942. This has been done vide order dated 23-8-1995. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the office of the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, District Superintendent of Police, Surat (Rural) and the Police Sub Inspector, Kamrej in order to get some record or evidence to prove participation of the petitioner in the freedom struggle as desired by the respondents. The aforesaid three authorities by their separate communications informed the petitioner that they are unable to provide relevant record proving that the petitioner had gone underground or that the petitioner had participated in the freedom struggle for independence. The petitioner produced the letters of all the aforesaid officers to the Collector, Surat for doing the needful in the matter. The petitioner thereafter, continued to pursue the matter with the respondents for grant of pension under the scheme, but as nothing has been done in his favour he has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.

(3.) The District Collector, Surat, to whom the petitioner submitted the certificates issued to him by the Police authorities, has not given any reply to the same, Clause 9 of the scheme provides for, 'how to prove the claims'. So far as the scheme which is based on the underground activities in the freedom movement is concerned, it has been provided that documentary evidence by way of Court's/Government's orders proclaiming the applicant as an offender, announcing an award on his head, or for his arrest or ordering his detention should be furnished. In absence of those documents it has next been provided that certificate from veteran freedom fighters who had themselves undergone imprisonment for five years or more, if the official records are not forthcoming due to their non-availability, should be produced. It is the case of the petitioner that regarding his underground activity during the Quit India Movement, official records are not forthcoming, due to their non-availability. He submitted three affidavits. From the first affidavit of Shri Jugatrambhai Chimanlal Dave it is clear that he suffered imprisonment for more than five years during the freedom struggle. In the affidavit Shri Dave stated that the petitioner remained underground for more than six months during the period 1942 to 1946, as he was one for whose detention orders were issued but he evaded arrest. So far as the affidavit of Shri Kikubhai Jagannath Pathak is concerned, his imprisonment period is less than five years. But he has been awarded Tamra Patra and life time political central pension. Same is the case "with Shri Makanjibhai Patel whose imprisonment period is less than five years." It is the quality and had the quantity which needs to be considered. In the present case, even if two affidavits of prominent freedom fighters, namely, Shri Makanjibhai Patel and Kikubhai Jagannath Pathak are excluded, yet one affidavit remains of the freedom fighter who has undergone imprisonment for more than five years during the freedom movement of the country.