DHARAM SINGH GILL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate and pitiable case. The petitioner is an old man of 85 years, a political sufferer and almost blind. He has been denied a freedom fighter pension as he has not been able to prove his circumstances to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities.

(2.) During the Silver Jubilee Celebration in the year 1972 for the Independence of India, a pension scheme for freedom fighters known as the 'Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972' was introduced. This scheme provided for the grant of pension to specified freedom fighters or to their families. The scheme was subsequently re -named as the 'Swantantarta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980' and was made applicable to certain other categories of freedom fighters, who had been left out of the 1972 scheme. The 1972 scheme laid down the conditions for the grant of pension. The petitioner claiming himself to be a freedom fighter accordingly applied for pension under that scheme enclosing therewith all the documents in his possession including the award of a scholarship to the petitioner's son as a son of a political sufferer and also the issuance of a fire arms licence to the petitioner on account of his status as a freedom fighter and the award of a Tamar Patar on 5.8.1973, which was handed over to him by the then Chief Minister Punjab, Giani Zail Singh. However, though the petitioner was honoured on several occasions, no pension was released to him despite his approach to several authorities in this behalf. The petitioner was ultimately successful in securing a freedom fighter's pension from the Punjab Government w.e.f. 30.5.1988 vide order dated 30.7.1999, Annexure P -13. Respondent No. 4, i.e., the under Secretary, Government of Punjab thereafter made a recommendation to the Central Government for the payment of the Central Government's share of the pension. It appears that the Central Government also made some enquiries with regard to the claim of the petitioner and having observed some contradictions in his claim, informed him vide Annexure P -15 dated 12.1.2000 that his claim had not been established and his prayer for the grant of central pension had been rejected. It appears that the Central Government also conveyed this information to the State Government with the result that the pension granted by the State Government, which was being disbursed to the petitioner regularly, was also discontinued under Orders dated 31.3.2000, Annexure P -16, with the petition. This petition has accordingly been filed challenging the orders Annexures P -15 and P -16.

(3.) At the very outset, it has been urged by Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the Union of India and Ms. Rita Kohli, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab that as the Central Government and the State Government had vide the impugned orders rejected the petitioner's claim on an appreciation of facts, a writ petition was not a proper remedy for the petitioner and that, if so advised, he could go in for a civil suit to prove his claim.