RAM KRISHAN SEHGAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners took part in the freedom struggle of Goa, which was recognised by the State of Haryana initially and they were granted freedom fighters pension vide order dated 6.3.1991 annexure P-5. It is not in dispute that the. freedom fighters for Goa liberation were treated at par with the freedom fighters, who took part in the freedom movement to liberate the country from British colonialism and accordingly the pension was sanctioned. Later, however, a show cause notice dated 10.3.1993 annexure P-7 was issued to the petitioners by the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana requiring the petitioners to show cause why the freedom fighters pension sanctioned in their favour should not be withdrawn and why the amount of pension paid to them should not be recovered. The ground set out in the show cause notices is that the petitioners had not undergone the requisite period of imprisonment. In para 8 of the writ petition, the petitioners have categorically averred that they were badly Beaten by the order of the Goa Court and were then released and thrown on the Indian border. They were given more than 10 strikes whenever they entered the Goa territory. The record of beating was no doubt destroyed when the Indian police drove out the portuguese from Goa. The petitioners rely on a circular dated 31.1.1983 annexure P - 11 issued by the Government of India which specifies the categories of punishment undergone by different freedom fighters. Sub-para (iii) thereof is to the effect that flogging/whipping or caning awarded by the court has been recognised as qualifying suffering for the purpose of grant of Samman pension and 10 strikes will be treated at par with six months imprisonment. The respondents in the written statement has not denied that the petitioners suffered the above torture at the hands of Portuguese police. However, a fresh defence has been taken in the preliminary objection in the written statement to the effect that the petitioners had relied on the certificates issued by the Goa Liberation Committee, Pune, which the Government of India did not recognise as per its letter dated 29.9.1993 annexure R-1. We find that this ground taken in defence is altogether at variance with the ground for denial of pension which was set out in the show cause notice annexure P-7 and does not hold water.

(2.) Accordingly, the order withdrawing freedom fighters pension payable to the petitioners is void and ineffectual. The respondents shall pay the freedom fighters pension to the petitioners for the period, for which they were denied.

(3.) It has been brought to our notice that because of the interim stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court on 24.12.1993, the petitioners are being paid freedom fighters pension. The respondents shall continue paying them freedom fighters pension.