JAGDISH LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus by directing the respondents to sanction Freedom Fighter Pension to the petitioner under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme, 1972.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he participated in Quit India Movement 1942 and earlier also he was actively participating in the freedom struggle and there were several warrants of arrest issued against him and he remained underground from September, 1939 to December 1945. Though the scheme was introduced in 1972, he did not apply for pension under the said Scheme, as the petitioner was having the source of income at that time and was getting more than Rs. 5,000/- per annum but subsequently he reached his old age having crossed 64 years. He applied for pension under the Scheme to enable him to sustain himself. Annexure P-1 is the application dated April 24, 1981, of the petitioner for grant of pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme. The said application was supported by certificate of one freedom fighter namely Noor Mohd. who also participated in the Freedom Movement. The Government of Punjab also recommended to the Government of India for consideration of the application of the petitioner for the grant of Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, under the Central Government Scheme with effect from August 1, 1980. The petitioner also filed a letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, wherein it was stated that the petitioner remained underground from 1939 to 1945 and also recommended the grant of pension but the Government of India by its letter dated Nil issued on 18th July, 1986 expressed its regrets that it is not possible to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Samman Pension on the ground that the documentary/supportive evidence sent by him along with his application does not prove his claim of suffering. This letter of the Government of India does not say which documents have been referred to by the Government for declining the grant of Freedom Fighters Pension to the petitioner. The Government of Punjab after satisfying itself recommended the grant of Freedom Fighter Pension to the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, also recommended pension to the petitioner. The order of the Government of India is devoid of any reason and is not a speaking order. It is only a proforma which was communicated to the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that there is no application of mind by the Government of India while declining the Freedom Fighter Pension to the petitioner. The petitioner is now aged more than 79 years. The documents produced before me clearly show that the petitioner participated in the Freedom Movement and went underground and warrants of arrest were issued against him. After perusing the record, I am of the view that the petitioner's claim is declined without any basis by the Government of India. The Supreme Court in Mukand Lal Bhandari and others v. Union of India and others, 1993 AIR(SC) 2127 held that the pension under the Scheme should be made payable only from the date on which application is made.

(3.) On the consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to Freedom Fighter Pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 , with effect from the date of his application, i.e. from April 24, 1981. Respondents are directed to grant the Freedom Fighter Pension to the petitioner under the Scheme of 1972 from the date of his application.