MAHENDRA ASHABHAI PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mahendra Ashabhai Patel has filed the present petition against the respondents as regards rejection of his application for getting pension under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972.

(2.) A notice was issued to the respondents. Respondent No. 1 has appeared and has filed affidavit-in-reply and produced documentary evidence in respect of his contentions. I have heard both the parties at length on merits. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of this petition finally by issuing Rule today.

(3.) Under the said Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972, the claimant is to produce the documents from the Court or Jail authorities to show that he had either undergone imprisonment for 6 months or that there was order of either arrest or detention and he had avoided his arrest for not less than six months by remaining underground. In case if the Public documents that is the documents from the Court or the Jail authorities are not available then the claimant has to annex to his application the affidavits and the certificates issued by the Freedom Fighters who have undergone imprisonment of more than two years. The present petitioner had applied for getting the pension under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme by making an application on 10-2-1990. Along with the application the petitioner had forwarded to the respondent a letter issued by the District Superintendent of Police dated 29-5-1989 wherein it has been mentioned that the original record was not available with the office and he had also annexed the certificates of Freedom Fighters who had undergone imprisonment for more than 2 years to show that the present petitioner was avoiding arrest for more than 6 months. But the application of the present petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the petitioner has preferred his application after 31st March, 1982 and as it was not supported by any official documents, i.e., documentary evidence like the Judgment or warrant of arrest his application was not tenable in law, and, therefore, the same was rejected. According to the petitioner the said action of the respondent No. 1 is contrary to the spirit of the said Scheme and the Scheme nowhere prescribed that the application for getting the freedom fighter pension was to be made within stipulated period. His claim was supported by the State Government, and, therefore, the respondent No. 1-Union of India was not justified in rejecting his claim.