SUKH LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner (77) claims to be a freedom-fighter. He states that he was the subject of the Ruler of State of Bilaspur. Before independence, the Indian National Congress was fighting for the independence of the country from British Rule. Similar movements far the freedom of the country and for the merger of the princely States with the Indian Union were going on. Bilaspur was one of such princely States. This movement was being run by various Praja Mandals affiliated to "All India States Peoples Conference", central organisation of which Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru was the Chairman. The key object of said Praja Mandal movement in various States was to achieve independence for the country and merge the princely States with the Indian Union.

(2.) The petitioner was also attracted to this movement in Bilaspur. He became its active member. The Raja of Bilaspur made all efforts to suppress the movement by impri-soning and or ordering externment and internment of the political workers who were taking part in the Praja Mandal Movement. The Raja was a despot and his breath was law for the State under his control. Most of these princely States merged with the Indian Union on or before 1-5-1948. However, the Raja of Bilaspur continued to resist the pressure and suppressed the Praja Mandal Movement and it was only on 12-10-1948 that the State of Bilaspur was merged with Himachal Pradesh.

(3.) The petitioner took part in this move-ment from 194 6/10/1948. He took part in the Satyagrah movement and was arrested and beaten by the Bilaspur Police and later under the verbal orders of the Raja of Bilaspur, he was externed from the State in October, 1946 and remained outside Bilaspur up to 1948 when the State was merged in Himachal Pradesh. Thus he remained extern-ed for a period of about two years. He and his family suffered economically and physically due to the externment and repression by the Raja of Bilaspur. The petitioner applied for the grant of Freedom Fighter Pension under the 1980 Scheme. The application was sup-ported by some certificates from Sh. Kahana and Khazana Singh. The papers of the petitioner were acknowledged by the first respondent. However, his claim was ultimate-ly rejected vide letter dated 28-1-1984 on the ground that there was paucity of proof in support of the claim preferred by the peti-tioner.