BALAK RAM MAHAJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment, we propose to decide C.W.P. No. 484 of 1984 and C.W.P. No. 163 of 1986, since the primary question of consideration arising for determination is same and similar. Before considering the question arising for determination, facts of the two petitions are being given separately.

(2.) PETITIONER Balak Ram Mahajan (now deceased) in C.W.P. No. 484/84 sought direction against the respondents for grant of payment to him of freedem fighter's pension, in accordance with the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 scheme) w.e.f. 15th August, 1972 and for declaring Clause 4 of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 1980 Scheme) as unconstitutional and as a consequence to quash orders Annexures R l and R 2 passed by respondent No. 1 declining to grant pension to him. Balak Ram Mahajan alleged that he was a resident of village Baggi in the erstwhile princely State of Mandi. Praja Mandal Movement gained movement in Mandi State, whose main aim was to liberate the princely State of Mandi and to get it merged with Union of India after independence of country w.e.f. 15th August, 1947. The Ruler tried his best to stiffle the movement. About the period of independence of the country, the movement was at its peak and the petitioner also participated actively in this movement and accordingly earned displeasure of the Mandi Darbar. In order to suppress the movement, the State Administration of Mandi passed orders, under which the petitioner and other participants were detained for six months under Section 4 of the Mandi State Public Safety Ordinance, which ordinance had been promulgated by the ruler of Mandi. Still not being satisfied with the detention, false cases were coined against all the participants including the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 302/307, 395/ 149 and 225 of the Penal Code.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the petition, a direction was made by this Court on 24th June, 1985 calling upon the respondents to re consider the petitioners's case in the light of decisions rendered in Tej Singh Nidharak v. Union of India, C.W.P. No. 224 of 1983, decided on 9th January, 1984, ILR 1984 HP 593 : (AIR 1985 HP 69) and Keshav Chander v. Union of India, C.W.P. No. 413 of 1984, decided on 11th December. 1984. After the case of the petitioner had been recommended by the State Government through its communication dated 2nd November, 1985, the Court on 10th December, 1985 again asked respondent No. 1 to take a decision in the petitioner's case for grant of pension. On 25th February, 1986, decision was conveyed by respondent No. 1 that on review, his case is not covered by the provisions of the Scheme and no pension can be awarded since the petitioner's suffering in jail was for less than six months. It is this action of respondent No. 1, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition by seeking amendment to the original pension. Grounds on which the petitioner challenged the respondents' action will be noticed, while noticing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.