KEWAL KRISHAN SHANDILLYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for issue of a mandamus to the respondent No. 1 to grant pension to the petitioner under the Swatantrata Sainik Sammn Pension Scheme, 1980.

(2.) The averments made in the writ petition show that the petitioner had joined as Clerk in British Army. He was posted in Casualty Directorate, Adjutant Generals Branch during the year 1944-45. The petitioner says that he has participated in the Freedom Movement and in recognition of his contribution, the Government has honoured him by conferring a Tamar Patra. On 26.12.1945 immediately after the arrest of his Colleague Shri Chanderbal, who had delivered an important file of the then Government to I.N.A. Defence Council, the petitioner is said to have been taken to Lower Bazar Police Station at Shimla and was locked up. While he was in lock-up the petitioner was served with a notice and was charged with the allegation of having acted in a manner prejudicial to the public safety. On that basis he was detained for two months under Section 129 of the Defence of India Rules which was later on extended to six months. However, due to intervention of Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, the petitioner is said to have been released alongwith Chanderbal. A case under rule 34/38 of Defence of India Rules was registered against the petitioner on 27.7.1946. Non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner. The petitioner surrendered before the Ilaqa Magistrate and moved an application for bail which was accepted. The Order of the Ilaqa Magistrate was set aside by the District Magistrate and the petitioner was taken into custody. He was challaned and was tried by the Additional Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. The petitioner is said to have been convicted on 2.1.1947 and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. His appeal against the conviction and sentence was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur some time in March, 1947 and he was acquitted. After independence, the petitioner was awarded Tamar Patra, but his claim for grant of pension has been turned down on the following three grounds :- .

(3.) When the writ petition came up for consideration before the Court on 17.3.1986 the petitioner appeared in person. A Division Bench of this Court issued notice of motion for 16.5.1986. On that day none appeared for respondent No. 1. The learned Deputy Advocate General Punjab made a statement that there was no scheme framed by the Punjab Government for grant of pension to the Freedom Fighters. On the basis of that statement the writ petition was dismissed against respondents No. 2 and 3. However, as against respondent No. 1, it was admitted.