GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 23-4-2001 (P-6) withdrawing the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension. The order of recovery in respect of the payment already made to him has also been challenged. A further prayer has been made for issuance of direction to the respondents to re-commence payment of pension in terms of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (P-1). Facts : In the Silver Jubilee year of independence in 1972, a Central Scheme for grant of pension to freedom fighters and their eligible dependents was introduced by respondent No. 1. The aforementioned scheme was further liberalized and renamed as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for brevity, 'the scheme'), which was made effective on 1-8-1980. According to the scheme, a person who had suffered minimum imprisonment of six months on account of participation in freedom struggle was entitled to the grant of pension. However, such a person was required to furnish the evidence as per Clause 2.2 (a) or (b) of the scheme. As clause 2.2 (b) of the scheme is relevant for the instant petition, the same is extracted below for facility of reference :-

(2.) The petitioner is claimed to have joined and participated in Quit India Movement in the year. 1942 on the call given by the Father of the Nation Shri Mahatma Gandhi. It is claimed that he was sentenced to one year imprisonment from 20-10-1942 to 20-10-1943. He was kept at Central Jail at Lahore. In the year 1992, the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No. 1 (Union of India) through respondent No. 2 (Governmnent of Punjab) for grant of pension under the 'scheme'. He disclosed that he suffered imprisonment from 20-10-1942 to 20-10-1943 in Central Jail, Lahore on account of his participation in Quit India Movement. In support of his claim, he has submitted his own affidavit and affidavits of coprisoners Sarv Shri Tara Singh and Bachan Singh, who had already been granted pension under the scheme. However, in the application submitted to respondent No. 1, the period of imprisonment recorded was 20-10-1942 to 15-8-1943. He also submitted his own affidavit apart from the affidavit of two co-prisoners namely Sarv Shri Gopal Sing Quami and Bachan Singh, who had already been granted pension under the scheme. Respondent No. 2 recommended (the case of the petitioner for grant of pension on 8-5-1998. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 after verifying the claim of the petitioner sanctioned his pension with effect from 13-1-1999, as is evident from perusal of order dated 11-2-1999 (P-3).

(3.) However, respondent No. 1 entertained some doubt with regard to the authenticity of the claim made by the petitioner on account of the fact that in the applications sent to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, different periods of imprisonment have been mentioned. In the application sent to respondent No. 1, the period mentioned was 20-10-1942 to 20-10-1943, whereas in the application sent to respondent No. 2, the period mentioned was 20-10-1942 to 15-8-1943 Another discrepancy which led to the issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner was that in the application sent to respondent No. 1, affidavits of co-prisoners Sarv Shri Gopal Singh Quami and Bachan Singh were given and whereas in the application sent to respondent No. 2, affidavits of co-prisoners Sarv Shri Tara Sigh and Bachan Singh were given. On the aforementioned basis the petitioner was issued a notice on 18-12-2000 (P-4) granting him an opportunity to show cause as to why the pension already granted to him should not be cancelled.