MOHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is about 80 years of age has been running from pillar to post during the last two decades for the grant of pension payable to the freedom fighters but without any positive result. He has approached this Court for the second time with the prayer for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant him pension under the provisions of Swatantrata Sainik Sammann Pension Scheme, 1980 (for short, the 'Scheme') on the ground that he had allegedly suffered imprisonment during freedom movement of the country. The claim of the petitioner has been resisted on the ground that the petitioner was not a freedom fighter within the meaning of the aforesaid Scheme.

(2.) Under the Scheme a person who has suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the mainland jails before independence is held eligible for the grant of Samman Pension. Detention under the orders of the competent authority has been directed to be considered as an imprisonment. Period of normal remission upto one month is required to be treated as part of actual imprisonment. After the judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 781 of 1992 decided on 27th May, 1993, the respondent authorities vide Annexure P/1 rejected the claim of the petitioner after finding some discrepancies in the record produced by him in support of his averments to the effect that he had suffered imprisonment within the meaning of the Scheme. The petitioner was alleged to have wrongly claimed to have participated in the Quit India Movement and was awarded 'Najarbandi' by the Special Magistrate Shri Suleman Malik for 9 months from August, 1942 to April, 1943 in Central Jail, Lahore. It was found that the claim made by the petitioner in his application dated 11th July, 1981 was contrary to his stand that he had participated in the Quit India Movement and was awarded one year imprisonment under Rule 39 of Defence of India Rules by A.D.M., Lahore from 25th September, 1942 to 24th July, 1943. The Punjab Government had reported that the petitioner was imprisoned from 20th October, 1942 to 24th July, 1943 in Central Jail, Lahore on account of his participation in the Quit India Movement. As there were some discrepancies regarding the period of imprisonment suffered by the petitioner, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner holding :-

(3.) The Supreme Court in Mukand Lal v. Union of India, Writ Petition No.153 of 1992 decided on 14th May, 1993 observed that as the Scheme had been introduced with the genuine desire to assist and honour those who had given the best part of their life for the country, it ill-behoves the Government to raise technical pleas like the plea of limitation against such claims. Infact, the Government, if it is possible for them to do so, should find out the freedom fighters or their dependents and approach them with the pension instead of requiring them to make applications for the same. It was further observed that all those persons who were found to have participated in the independence movement be granted pension and claims of only such persons be rejected who are found to have preferred false, frivolous and concocted claims.