GYAN CHAND JAIN Vs. COLLECTOR, DIST. JABALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claiming to be a freedomfighter submitted an application for grant of Freedomfighter Samman Nidhi to the State Government in the General Administration Department in the year 1972 in the prescribed proforma as stipulated under the Swantantrata Sangram Samman Nidhi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam'). The application was forwarded for scrutiny and verification to the Collector, Jabalpur who conducted an enquiry and recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of the Samman Nidhi. The State Government vide Annexure -A dated 20 -6 -1973 allowed the application and the petitioner was paid the Samman Nidhi regularly up to 12 -6 -1979. But, thereafter, all of a sudden the said payment was stopped.

(2.) IT is averred in the writ petition that before stopping such payment the petitioner was not issued any notice to show cause nor was he ever afforded an opportunity of being heard. On enquiry the petitioner was orally informed that the Samman Nidhi which was conferred on him earlier, was withdrawn as he was released on bail from Central Jail, Jabalpur on furnishing surety. The petitioner, as putforth in the writ petition, submitted series of representations but the same were not dealt with by the State Government. Being unable to tolerate the sphinx like silence of the respondents the petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 1995 for mitigating his grievances. According to the petitioner he had remained in the Central Jail, Jabalpur from 5 -3 -1943 to 19 -4 -1943 for more than 45 days under Rule 39 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939 along with other prisoners and his name has been mentioned at serial No. 33/92 in the Freedomfighters Register kept in the Collectorate Jabalpur and there is no justification to withdraw the allowance.

(3.) I have heard Mr. M.L. Chansoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. K. Shukla, learned Government Advocate for the State. Mr. Chansoriya has submitted that the petitioner, who had fought for this country in his youth, had immense faith and trust in the administration that his case would be looked into and his grievances would be mitigated and with the aforesaid unflinching faith and trust embedded, made representations to the State authorities but when his patience reached the zenith and he was unable to live with basic human dignity he approached this Court as a last resort. It is settled in law that a litigant who does not agitate his grievances well in time a writ petition at his instance is ordinarily not to be entertained and his visit has to be stopped at the very threshold. However, the present case stands in a different footing altogether. The concept of Samman Nidhi is a recognition, a recognition by the independent India to the freedomfighters who fought selflessly against the British Government. If the petitioner is entitled to the benefit under law, I am of the considered view, his right should not be curbed or curtailed because of delayed approach. In this context I may profitably refer to the observations by the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari and others vs. Union of India and others, JT 1993(3) SC 342: 7. As regards the contention that the petitioners had filed their applications after the date prescribed in that behalf, we are afraid that the Government stand is not justifiable. It is common knowledge that those who participated in the freedom struggle either at the national level or in the erstwhile Nizam State, are scattered all over the country and most of them may even be inhabiting the remotest parts of the rural areas. What is more, almost all of them must have now grown pretty old, if they are alive. Whether the freedom fighters are not alive and their widows and the unmarried daughters have to prefer to claims, the position may still be worse with regard to their knowledge of the prescribed date. What is more, if the scheme has been introduced with the genuine desire to assist and honour those who had given the best part of their life for the country, it illbehoves the Government to raise pleas of limitation against such claims. In fact, the Government, if it is possible for them to do so, should find out the freedom fighters of their dependents and approach them with the pension instead of requiring them to make applications for the same. That would be the true spirit of the working out such schemes. The scheme had rightly been renamed in 1985 as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme to accord with its objects. We, therefore, cannot countenance the plea of the Government that the claimants would be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme if they made applications before a particular date notwithstanding that in fact they had suffered the imprisonment and made the sacrifices and were thus qualified to receive the benefit. We are, therefore, of the view that whatever the date on which the claimants make the applications, the benefit should be made available to them. The date prescribed in any past or future notice inviting the claims, should be regarded more as a matter of administrative convenience than as a rigid time -limit.