PARTAP SINGH SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No one appears when Regular Second Appeal is taken up for hearing. The appellant, Partap Singh, has filed a civil suit on 18.05.1984 against Union of India and the State of Punjab seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to grant of freedom fighter pension from August, 1972. As per the averment made in the suit, the appellant had statedly served in the Indian National Army from 1942 to 1945 as a Sepoy. He claims to have worked in Azad School of Indian National Army at Penang from where he was taken as prisoner when it came under the control of British. It is accordingly stated that he was imprisoned in Bidda Dairy Camp prison, Singapore, where he remained for nearly 8 months. On this basis, he made a claim for grant of freedom fighter pension. Prior to filing the suit, he served a notice under Section 80 of the CPC and when despite that no pension was sanctioned, he filed a suit.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants. It is stated that case of the appellant was of doubtful category as he had made a contradictory claims at different times and have also adduced evidence, which is of a contradictory nature. It is disclosed that through letter dated 31.7.1982, the Home Ministry had asked the appellant to furnish clarifications about his claim and circumstances of his detention. The appellant, however, did not care to reply. Instead of taking action, he filed the present suit. The civil Court declined the prayer of the appellant on the ground that the grant of freedom fighter pension is a token of honour and therefore held that the scheme was gratuitous in nature and did not confer any civil right to the appellant. It was also held that the appellant was asked to explain as to how he was detained in Bidda Dairy Camp while he was posted at Azad School, Penang. He did not reply to this query. At the same time it is observed that the pension case of the appellant had not been disposed of finally and as such the suit was premature.

(3.) On the basis of evidence produced, the Court otherwise could not come to any conclusive finding whether the appellant was a freedom fighter. The matter was, therefore, left to be decided by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The suit, however, was dismissed but still the copy of the judgment was sent to Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs with the request that the case of the appellant/freedom fighter be considered on merit. The appellant was also asked to submit the reply to the queries raised.