RAMCHANDRA D ERANDE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present writ petition, which is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ directing the respondents to pay pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980 (the Scheme for short ).

(2.) THE petitioner was born on 1st July, 1925 and at the relevant time was studying in the 6th standard in a school at Pune. He participated in the freedom movement in 1942 and as a result of an incident which took place in or about August, 1942 the petitioner was arrested. According to the petitioner, this happened on 11th August, 1942. However, the date of arrest in the records of the Criminal Prosecution has been shown as 27th September, 1942. The petitioner was charged for offence of breach of several rules of the Defence of India Rules and also under sections 147 and 149 of Indian Penal Code. He was found guilty of the offences and was convicted and ordered to suffer imprisonment for a maximum period of 12 months. This order of conviction was passed on 27th February, 1943 and petitioner on the basis of his arrest having taken place on 27th September, 1942 was thus in jail during that period. He preferred an appeal against the order of conviction and sentence to this Court and in the appeal the sentence was reduced and he was released on 3rd June, 1943. Thus, according to the petitioner, he was behind bars from 27th September, 1942 to 3rd June, 1943. Thus, according to him, he had undergone imprisonment for six months and as he had participated in the freedom movement, he is qualified for the pension scheme announced on 16th September, 1972 which is meant for freedom fighters. An application was submitted by the petitioner in the prescribed form. No reply was received from the respondents. The petitioner made several attempts to pursue the matter but nothing happened. It is the petitioners contention, which is not disputed, that the State Government sanctioned pension to the petitioner under its Pension Scheme on 15th December, 1983. The petitioner again submitted a fresh application as being eligible under the above mentioned scheme of the Union of India and the same was submitted as required through the State Government who after verification of the claim of the petitioner recommended the same. On 14th August, 1986 the first respondent informed the petitioner that he did not satisfy the criteria as he did not prove his claim of imprisonment for more than six months, and, therefore, his application was rejected. In fact, in reply to the said letter, the petitioner enclosed a letter dated 27/28th September, 1972 issued in his favour by the Commissioner of Police stating therein that the petitioner was arrested on 11th August, 1942 in connection with the independence movement, was convicted and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months. He also enclosed a certificate from Yeravada Central Prison dated 31st October, 1972 stating therein that the petitioner was admitted to the said Prison on 27th February, 1943 and was released on 3rd June, 1943. He had submitted further documents which included an affidavit, inter alia, stating therein that he had in all undergone imprisonment for 9 months and 21 days. Further documents as enumerated in para 12 of the petition were also sent to the respondents. However, he did not receive any reply. It is the petitioners case in the petition that he is eligible under the said scheme to be given pension and that the same is denied to him despite the fact that he satisfied all the criteria.

(3.) THE respondents have filed an affidavit denying the claim of the petitioner mainly on two grounds. The first being that the last date for receiving applications under the said scheme was 31st March, 1982 and that application had to be through the State Government supported by Documentary evidence. But in the case of the petitioner the application was received as late as 23rd August, 1983. The second contention which is taken by the respondents is that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner after being initially arrested continued to remain in custody.