AMAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 22.02.2014 passed by respondent No.1 whereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner for granting the status of freedom fighter.

(2.) The petitioner has filed an application dated 21.09.2012 before the respondent No.1 for including his name in the list of freedom fighters. The application was filed in due form alongwith the relevant documents. The application was forwarded by the respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 for scrutinising the petitioner's case to be included in the list of freedom fighter and to extend him the benefit as per the rules framed by the State Government for the said purpose. Even after the period of 2 years, the application preferred by the petitioner has not been decided by the respondents. In the meantime, the petitioner came to know that in the application form submitted by him, due to inadvertence it has been mentioned Goa Mukti Sangram was held in the year 1957 whereas it was held in the year 1955. The petitioner immediately made a request to the respondent No.1 vide letter dated 18.02.2014 to read the year 1957 as 1955 in entire application along with the affidavit. The respondent No.1 thereafter vide order dated 22.02.2014 rejected the application submitted by the petitioner on the ground that as per application submitted by the petitioner he participated in Goa Mukti Sangram but the same concluded on 15 t h August, 1955. In the impugned order, it has been observed that the benefit of honorary pension under Rule 3(4) is granted to the persons, who took part in the above mentioned moment at Goa in the year 1955. It has also been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any document to show that he has participated in the Goa Mukti Sangram and also that he has remained under ground in the freedom movement of 1942.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 22.02.2014, by which the respondent No.1 has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that the application was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the Goa Mukti Sangram was held in the year 1955 while in the application it has been stated in the year 1957. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits when the petitioner came to know about the said bonafide mistake, he immediately submitted an application for rectifying the said mistake along with an affidavit, however, the affidavit as well as the request made by the petitioner was not considered by the respondents while rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. It is further submitted that along with the application, the petitioner has filed number of documents and photographs to show that the petitioner played instrumental role in Goa Mukti Sangram and further relied on the Rules, which is framed by the State Government known as Madhya Pradesh Swatantra Sangram Sainik Sammannidhi Rules, 1972 particularly Rule 2(b)(1), Rule 2(b)(6), Rule 2(b)(8) and Rule 2(b)(1) clarification No.3 and 4. On the basis of this rules, it is submitted that the petitioner has complied with the provisions of this rule and therefore, the respondents have committed error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for freedom fighter. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision passed by the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari and others Vs. Union of India and Others , 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2, Gurdial Singh Vs. Union of India and Others , (2001) 8 SCC 8 and on the order passed by Madra High Court in the case of V. Gandhi Vs. The Secretary to the Government, Tamil Nadu Public (Political Pension-III) passed in W.P. No.18262/2017 decided on 17.01.2018. Relying on these judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents should not have rejected the application submitted by the petitioner on hypertechnical ground. It is the honor to be given to the freedom fighters, who have participated in the freedom movement.