RANJIT SINGH GULERIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate writ/direction to the following effects: a) That the petitioner be declared to be a Freedom Fighter and be granted pension under the Swatantarta Sainaini Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 from the date of his application. b) That the order of rejection dated 26.7.1998 (Annexure -PF) may be quashed. c) That the respondent No. 1 be directed to pay arrears of pension to the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of his application.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that before 12.10.1948 he was a subject of the ex -ruler of erstwhile State of Bilaspur and a member of Praja Mandal Movement which was working for the independence of the country and merger of the State of Bilaspur in the Union of India. He earned displeasure of the then ruler of Bilaspur State and was externed under the verbal orders of the ruler in May 1946 and was threatened to be arrested and jailed if he entered Bilaspur. He could return to his home in Bilaspur in October 1918 after the merger of the State of Bilaspur in the Union of India. During the period of his externment the petitioner and his family suffered both physically and financially.

(3.) In the year 1972 the Govt. of India promulgated a scheme known as "Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972" to recognize the sacrifices made by those who struggled for the freedom of the country. This scheme was further liberalised in the year 1980 and was re -named as "The Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980". Under this scheme the benefit of pension was extended to all Freedom Fighters as a token of Samman to them. Because of the deterioraton in his financial condition and family obligations, the petitioner was compelled to apply for grant of pension and benefits of the said scheme. Along with his applicaton to respondent No. 1 made on 21.9.1995 he attached the required documentary proof of his being a Freedom Fighter as required under the scheme. One of such document is the certificate issued in his favour by Mr. Chet Ram a Freedom Fighter who had been sentenced to imprisonment for two years, a copy whereof is Annexure PA on the record. When the petitioner came to know at a later stage that the respondent No. 1 has agreed to accept certification of the claim of sufferings for freedom by a person against verbal orders of the rulers of the Princely States, he furnished a certificate issued by a contemporary Government official, i.e. Shri Kartar Singh, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur a copy whereof is annexure PC on the record. He had further furnished the certificates issued in his favour by Mr. Durga Datt, a Freedom Fighter and Mr. Narotam Datt Shastri, an ex -MLA and Vice President of the then Bilaspur Praja Mandal. Respondent No. 2 verified the genuineness and veracity of the documents submitted by the petitioner and declared him a freedom fighter. The petitioner apprised respondent No. 1 of this fact. On 18.11.1996 when the petitioner visited the concerned office of the respondent No. 1 it was found that except his application, no other record was available in the office; therefore, on demand the petitioner submitted another application along with the requisite supporting documents in proof of his being a Freedom Fighter on 19.11.1996. However, he received a letter dated 24.10.1997 from respondent No. 1 asking him to furnish original certificate issued by Ex -Deputy Superintendent of Police Mr. Kartar Singh. Petitioner informed respondent No. 1 that original certificate had already been submitted by him alongwith his application dated 21.9.1995. The respondent No. I, however, refused to grant Freedom Fighters pension to the petitioner which led him to file CWP No. 403/98 in this Court. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, this court passed the following orders in the said CWP. "We find that from the categorical statement ofthe State Govt. about the sufferings of the petitioner in the Praja Mandal Movement and granting him the pension under the State Scheme and further recommending his case to the respondent Union of India, the grounds again reiterated bythe respondent Union of India in the communication dated 7th January 1998 addressed to the petitioner are not found to be factually correct and wrong impresison has been given to the court by way of affidavit filed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India that the State Government have not awarded pension to the petitioner and his case was never recommended by the State Govt. to respondent -Union of India".