BALWANT SINGH Vs. SECRETARIAT INCHARGE FREEDOM FIGHTER BRANCH MAIN SECRETARIAT, SECTOR 1, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's claim for Freedom Fighters Pension under the Scheme formulated by the Government of India and the State of Punjab has not been considered, compelling him to file this petition in this Court. The petitioner claims to be a Freedom Fighter. Earlier the petitioner had filed a petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court being WP (C) No. 11929/2000. He was permitted to make a representation to the State Government under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 formulated by the Government of India for the grant of pension to the Freedom Fighters. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 11.12.2000 that in case the State Government finds merit in the representation, it should forward the same to the Central Government for passing appropriate orders within reasonable time, as is evident from the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court (Annexure P-8). The petitioner made a representation to the State Government. It is stated that the State Government has recommended the cases of number of other persons, copies of such recommendations have been placed on record as Annexures P-1 to P-4. The petitioner also submitted additional documents in support of his claim for Freedom Fighter Pension vide his letter dated 20.10.2006. The claim of the petitioner has not been considered.

(2.) The State Government in its reply has stated that application dated 21.3.1981 submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the Government of India vide letter dated 18.9.1991 for taking action at their level. Government of India vide its letter dated 25.9.1991, however, informed the petitioner that in absence of any requisite final evidence, his application for grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension cannot be accepted. Vide subsequent letter dated 9.4.1996, Government of India further communicated that the co-prisoner certificates submitted by the petitioner are not acceptable. It is also stated that even the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 17.7.2001 that co- prisoner certificate submitted by him had been declared ineligible by the Government of India and the petitioner was requested vide various letters dated 11.7.2005, 24.8.2006, 4.10.2006, 1.11.2006 and 12.12.2006 to submit two other eligible co-prisoner certificates. In so far as the reply filed on behalf of the Government of India is concerned, it is stated that initially a Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme, 1972 was started by the Government of India w.e.f. 15.8.1972 where under pension was to be granted to the living freedom fighters, their families if they are are not and now to the widows of the martyrs. It is further stated that 1972 Scheme was further liberalised in the year 1980 and re-named as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. Such persons are eligible under the Scheme who had undergone at least one of the sufferings prescribed in the Scheme like imprisonment/detention against an executive order, underground sufferings, , externment, internment etc. on account of his participation in the freedom struggle, INA and Indian Independence League. The Scheme further requires the documentary proof in support of the claim of sufferings. Various kinds of evidence are envisaged under the Scheme which include both primary evidence i.e. the official record and secondary evidence like co-prisoner certificates who have undergone jail suffering of minimum one year and who were with the applicant in the same jail. In case the certifier happens to be a sitting or Ex-MP/MLA, only one certificate in place of the two is required. Union of India has specifically mentioned that if petitioner fulfills the evidentiary criteria, his case for grant of pension can be considered.

(3.) Freedom Fighters are class apart who may be very few in number and may be at the fag end of their life. It is more than 62 years since the days of struggle is over and these persons are still clamouring for the small benefits. Whatever the country has achieved is because of contribution of such like persons who participated in the Freedom movement staking even their own lives ignoring their family and other interest for a better future not only for themselves, but for the country. Even though the Government of India and some State Governments formulated Schemes for grant of pension to Freedom Fighters, but the standard of proof/evidence asked for from such persons is a matter of concern. These persons at this stage of their life cannot be expected to move from pillar to post and collect the kind of evidence to support their claim for Freedom Fighters Pension. From the reply and the Scheme which envisaged the proof in support of their claim, even creates a doubt of the sincerity of the Government to grant any such benefit to the Freedom Fighters. Their credentials are being doubted and they are asked to collect and procure the evidence which may be difficult for them at this stage to find. It would have been more appropriate if the Government of India or the State Government as the case may be, had appointed some authorities to examine their claims at local level and make recommendations to the concerned authorities. The only evidence which these persons could procure is perhaps the affidavits of their co-prisoners if alive which also seems to be a difficult proposition, keeping in view the lapse of period since the freedom movement. At the first place such like persons are made to run from pillar to post and even they are able to procure some evidence, the same is doubted and tested like the evidence in criminal cases. As a matter fact, Central Government/State Government should have created some agency or mechanism at district level or at any other appropriate level for examining their claims and to facilitate verification of the claims by such created agency, rather than asking the claimants to procure the evidence. Till such mechanism is placed in position, the claim of petitioner needs to be dealt with in the manner here-in-after noticed. The petitioner has named a number of persons whose claims have been recommended and with whom the petitioner had acquaintance. The claim of the petitioner could very well be verified from such persons whose claims have been accepted by the State Government or the Government of India and who have been granted Freedom Fighters Pension. The Government of India has undertaken to consider the claim of the petitioner. Even in the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in earlier writ petition, the State Government had been asked to recommend the case of the petitioner after verification. The State Government has already forwarded the claim of the petitioner to Government of India. From the reply of the State Government, it appears that the petitioner lodged his claim in the year 1981 and till 2001, State Government and Government of India are in correspondence. It is almost 30 years that the petitioner lodged his claim for freedom fighters pension, but nothing has been done. In view of the plight of the petitioner and such like other persons, it is deemed appropriate that his claim be finalised within the shortest possible time. The petitioner shall approach the Deputy Commissioner of the district where he originally belonged in Punjab. The Deputy Commissioner shall conduct a discreet enquiry within a period of one month on the basis of the information to be supplied by the petitioner and submit his report to the Secretary, Incharge Freedom Fighters Branch, Government of Punjab. If the findings of the Deputy Commissioner are positive, in favour of the petitioner, Secretary Incharge shall forward the same to the Government of India recommending grant of Freedom Fighters Pension. Government of India shall accordingly pass appropriate orders within a period of two months thereafter. In the event, the findings of the Deputy Commissioner are against the petitioner, he will be communicated accordingly.