NANKU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Nanku claims that he is a freedom fighter and is, therefore, entitled to the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (hereinafter "pension") under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter "1980 Scheme"; as he participated in the movement for the merger of erstwhile princely State of Bilaspur with the Union of India. He was convicted under section 81 of the Defence of India Act, 1939 and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months. He was also externed from Bilaspur State as per the oral orders of the erstwhile Ruler of Bilaspur.

(2.) The petitioner submitted an application to the first respondent with a copy to the second respondent on 26th March, 1982 for the grant of pension enclosing therewith the requisite certificate. The case of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No. 1 through letter of 21st July, 1986 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to submit the requisite certificate as required under the Scheme in support of his claim (Annexure PB). This decision of respondent No. 1 is neither based on facts nor it was in consonance with the Scheme. As a matter of fact, the case was rejected without application of mind. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 171 of 1987, Nanku v. Union of India claiming pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 as he had participated in the Praja Mandal Movement for the merger of the erstwhile princely State of Bilaspur with the Union of India mentioning therein that the petitioner had been convicted under section 81 of the Defence of India Act, 19j9 and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for six months. The petitioner remained in jail for 24 days and he was released on payment of fine. Thereafter, he was externed from Bilaspur State in December, 1947 till 12tb October, 1948 when the State was merged in the Union of India. These were the verbal orders since that I was the practice commonly prevalent in the State. Civil Writ Petition I No. 171 of 198/ was decided by this Court on 16 -2 -1989 with the following observations i "Annexure -PG/1, a representation submitted by the petitioner I to the Government of India, shows that he had produced the 1 certificate of one Shri Kahna Ram, who had been convicted 1 and sentenced for five years imprisonment for his activities in j the freedom movement. He had also produced Annexure A, a certificate issued by the jail authorities, to show that he was 1 convicted under section 81 of the Defence of India Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. He had, however, undergone imprisonment for a period of 24 days only. He had, alongwith his representation Annexure -PG/i, produced other certificates as corroboratory evidence. None of these documents had been considered before Annexure -H -1, order rejecting his application, was passed. We, therefore, quash Annexure -H -1 and direct respondent No. 1 to pass fresh orders after considering the certificates produced by the petitioner within six months from today"

(3.) Despite the direction of this Court, petitioners application was rejected by a letter No. H7/B/342/82 -RF. (HP) on August 3, 1990 (Annexure -PD) on the ground that the sufferings of the petitioner being less than six months, he was not eligible to get the Samman Pension and his claim for externment from Bilaspur State was also rejected on the ground that his both claims were contradictory. The petitioner has assailed this decision contending that the same is vague, arbitrary, against facts and against the Scheme. As a matter of fact, the petitioners case has been rejected on the same grounds on which respondent No 1 had rejected his case which were the subject -matter of Civil Writ Petition No. 171 of 1987 and the direction given by this Court to respondent No. 1 was to consider the certificates of one Shri Kahana Ram and the jail authorities alongwith other facts as corroboratory evidence. The impugned decision discloses that respondent No. 1 did not adhere to the direction of this Court, otherwise there could be no reason to dismiss his claim for the pension, hence the order being illegal, arbitrary and against the Scheme, deserves to be set -aside. Specifically, it has been contended that the petitioner is a freedom fighter within the meaning of the Scheme. He suffered imprisonment on account of his participation in the movement for the merger of erstwhile princely State of Bilaspur in the Union of India He was also externed out of the State of Bilaspur by the Ruler and remained out for more than six months. (Cause -B of eligibility criteria read with letter No 3/8/72 -ii, dated 25th August, 1972). Certificates of Kahna Ram and others (Annexures -B, C and D) and the jail certificate demonstrate that the case of the petitioner is covered under the Scheme. It was on the basis of these certificates produced by the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. .171 of 1987 that this Court had felt satisfied that the petitioner was a freedom fighter and was entitled to pension. It w7as after coming to this conclusion that a direction to consider the case of the petitioner was given, otherwise no such direction could have been issued in case this Court had not accepted the contention of the petitioner that he was a freedom fighter and his claim fell within the Scheme and was, therefore, entitled to pension,