CHARAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 28.1.1997, Annexure P-1, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 1980 Scheme) has been rejected by Union of India, respondent No. 1.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that from 9.3.1924 to 23.7.1925 he had undergone imprisonment in Nabha Beer Jail in connection with freedom struggle of Indian National Movement under Jaito Morcha (Akali Morcha). According to the petitioner, the Government introduced a scheme known as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. This scheme was formerly known as Freedom Fighters Sainani Pension Scheme, 1972. Petitioner applied to the Government of India for grant of pension under the 1980 Scheme. The Government of India vide letter dated 31.1.1983 took a decision to consider the claim of the applicants in respect of their jail sufferings in case the applicant submits a certificate of co-prisonership from any two renowned freedom fighters who themselves had undergone imprisonment for not less than one year in connection with the freedom struggle and are recipients to Tamra Patras and pension from the Central revenue. The claim which the petitioner had put in to respondent No. 1 was sent to respondent No. 2 for verification. After verification, respondent No. 2 duly recommended the case of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the recommendation made by respondent No. 2, vide order dated 28.1.1997, the claim of the petitioner under the Scheme has been rejected on the ground that Jail record for the period from 9.3.1924 to 23.7.1925 is not available and also the certificates of co-prisoners, namely, S/Sh. Hira Singh Bhathal, Ex-MLA, Joginder Singh and Manorath Singh cannot be considered because the sufferings of the said co-prisoners have also not been proved on the basis of official documentary evidence.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel and going through the record, I find that the case of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 28.1.1997 on two counts: namely (1) that no jail record was available for the period from 9.3.1924 to 23.7.1925 during which petitioner claims to have suffered imprisonment; and (2) that the secondary evidence sent by petitioner to the Ministry could not be taken into consideration because their cases too were not proved on the basis of the same. The impugned order nowhere indicates as to an what basis Hira Singh Bhathal, Joginder Singh and Manorath Singh were granted pension. It nowhere indicate that they were granted pension on the basis of co-prisoners certificates. Mr. Giani has not been able to cite a judgment whereby the case of a freedom fighter for grant of pension was rejected on the ground that the certificate issued by the co-prisoners was not taken into consideration because the said co-prisoner had got pension on the basis of another co-prisoner's certificate. It is true that as regard the sufficiency of proof, it is for the Government to consider and not for this Court to scrutinise the documents and pronounce upon their genuineness. But at the same time, it is expected that the Authority considering the claim of the freedom fighter is to take into consideration the entire material placed before it. One of the materials placed before the Union of India was the recommendation of the State Government who on verification had duly recommended the case of the petitioner. The State Government has also granted Punjab State Swatantrata Samman pension to the petitioner. The impugned order, Annexure P-1, does not show that on what consideration, the Authority had rejected the recommendation of the State Government who on verification, had found the claim of the petitioner to be genuine. On this score alone, order dated 28.1.1997, Annexure P-1, is liable to be quashed.