SURENDRA NATH GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a 82 years old senior citizen and has filed this petition being aggrieved by the action of the Union of India in not granting him freedom fighters pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the scheme"). Petitioner contends that he is a freedom fighter and he is receiving freedom fighters pension from the State Government. He applied for grant of pension under the M.P. Swatantrata Senani Samman Nidhi Niyam, 1972, the State Government initially did not forward the case to the Union of India. Finally, the matter was forwarded to the Government of India by the State Government but the claim has been rejected. Vide orders, Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2, petitioner has been informed that his case has not been forwarded by the State Government and there is no proof with regard to the fact that he has undergone imprisonment for six months or more during the freedom movement and on that ground the application has been rejected.

(2.) SHRI Pradeep K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once under the same scheme, pension is granted by the State Government and when the State Government has forwarded the case to the Union of India, the Union of India cannot refuse grant of pension on the ground that there is no proof of undergoing imprisonment. Inviting my attention to judgment passed by this Court in WP No. .675 of 1995 [Purasram Pande v. Union of India] and various others cases including the case of Narmadeshwar Sahai Verma v. State of M.P. [WP No. 12 of 2001], the learned counsel argues that refusal to grant freedom fighters pension is unsustainable.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.