KAMLA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the instant petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant Freedom Fighters Pension, firstly, to the husband of the petitioner and thereafter to the petitioner from the date it has been granted to other similarly situated persons and also for grant of arrears along with interest.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that Late Sep. Harphul Singh, husband of the petitioner had joined as Sepoy vide No.8676 1st Bahwalpur Infantry and served in the Punjab regiment. He was enrolled on 09.05.1930 and was discharged on 18.02.1946. The reason for discharge was that he was a member of the Indian National Army (INA) and it is so mentioned in the Sheet Roll for combatants dated 14.09.1968, Annexure P-l. The petitioner's husband unfortunately expired on 28.08.1992. The details of service particulars of the Harphul Singh have been attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-2. The petitioner had through out been trying to get the benefit of Freedom Fighter's Pension under the "Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980" (for short 'Scheme'). She had applied under the said scheme in July, 2013 but neither her case was sent to the Union of India, respondent No.1 nor was it processed by the Government of Haryana, respondent No.2. The documents submitted by the petitioner stood duly verified as is apparent from the reply dated 08.07.2014, Annexure P-4, received from the Haryana Swatantrata Sainani Samman Pension Samiti. Every time the petitioner approached respondent No.2, she was informed that the committee was yet to be constituted. She applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and vide memo dated 27.08.2015, Annexure P-5, she was informed that the case had been taken up as many as 12 times by the committee but was not finalized. Since the case remained pending with respondent No.2, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

(3.) Respondent No.1, Union of India has contested this writ petition by relying upon Paras 1.5 and 5 of the Revised Guidelines dated 06.08.2014. Further stand is that the petitioner has approached this Court after more than 25 years of the death of her husband. Still further it has been submitted that the case of the petitioner for pension has not been received by it and that the husband of the petitioner never applied for pension under the Scheme. In a separate reply, respondent No.2 has also relied upon Para 1.5 of the Revised Guidelines, Annexure R-l, to contest the claim of the petitioner.