RAM SINGHASAN THAKUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a resident of district Ballia, Uttar Pradesh. He was a recognized freedom fighter. He was getting pension made for the freedom fighters since 1974. He was also getting other facilities from then. One private individual made a complaint against .the petitioner and his family members. On 27th September, 1999 the petitioner received a letter under registered post from the respondent No. 2, by which the petitioner's grant of pension was cancelled provisionally and order for recovery of pension amount was made. Further reminder was given to the petitioner on 23rd December, 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application before the concerned respondent disclosing the facts and figures with a reason for not giving reply to the first letter within time and requesting him not to cancel the pension. Further letters were also given giving other particulars. However, by a letter dated 26th September, 2001 the Government of India stopped pension and finally ordered for recovery of the pension already granted to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, such action is illegal, arbitrary and .unjust and the order should be quashed/set aside, with a further prayer for giving pension month by month along with arrears, not to realise the pension already disbursed and/or to reconsider the case.

(2.) Initially the petitioner obtained an interim order not to realise the disbursed amount on 23rd April, 2002 from a Division Bench of this Court, which is still in force.

(3.) Respondents contended that the petitioner applied for grant of pension on account of underground sufferings from 26th July, 1943 to 15th September, 1943 and undertrial jail sufferings from 16th September, 1943 to 22nd April, 1944 for participating in freedom movement of 1942. The District Magistrate, Ballia issued a certificate dated 30th April, 1973 showing that the petitioner was challenged on 19th July, 1943 under Section 39 of the Defence of India Rules and it was reported by D.I.S., Ballia. The certificate also shows that he was released on 22nd April, 1944 as per the Register-8 of Police Station Ballia. His case was disbelieved by the authority on various grounds. Firstly, he was about 15 years 6 months of age in 1943 at the time of claimed undertrial sufferings and as per Reformatory Schools Act an adolescent would not have been jailed with adults. Secondly, "Fard Zurm" (charge-sheet) in Urdu and its Hindi translation received through the District Magistrate, Ballia indicates a name of Singhasan Thakur but not of Ram' Singhasan Thakur. Thidly, he was taken in the custody on 9th August, 1942, the date of starting Quit India Movement, and the reason is unknown as to why the petitioner went underground on 9th August, 1942 itself, therefore, he was not proclaimed offender and no announcement of award on his head/arrest was necessitated onto abscond. The petitioner did not submit a copy of the Court order resulting his acquittal or copy of the jail certificate showing the date of his entry' into jail and release therefrom to show the actual period of his imprisonment/sufferings. Fourthly, the petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence based on official records that he was declared proclaimed offender or necessary award was announced, therefore, his abscondence was voluntary. Fifthly, the District Magistrate, Ballia did not furnish any report from the office records giving details of jail sufferings of the petitioner as it was not traceable. On such basis the pension was sanctioned and it was made clear that it will be cancelled or modified with out notice if it is found that the same was sanctioned on mistaken grounds or on false information. Sixthly, the complaint was made that the petitioner was minor at the time of freedom fight. Lastly, as per explanation-3 of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 undertrial period should be counted when there is an order of conviction but not order of acquittal. Respondents further contended that the petitioner's house, which was alleged to be raided, was of his father and he could not have been held responsible for his father's deed even if he was residing in that house. A boy of 14 years 6 months of age normally could not have any property in his name. The claimed action to confiscate his property was taken under Sections 87/88 but as the house was not his property, there was no question of confiscation of the same. District Magistrate, Ballia has reported that a search was conducted at the residence of one Sri Samrath Thakur and on seizure of pro-congress literature he was arrested.