GIRDHARI LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a subject of the former Princely State of Mandi which merged with the Union of India after independence and became a part of Himachal Pradesh on May 1, 1948. According to the petitioner, he was an active participant in the Praja Mandal Movement which aimed at securing the merger of the said Princely State with the Union of India after the country attained independence on Aug. 15, 1947 and he was therefore, ordered to be detained for a period of six months under S.4 of the Mandi State Public Safety Ordinance under the orders of the Home Minister of Mandi State. Consequently, the petitioner was detained on 8th of Asoj, 2004 (BK) corresponding to Sept. 24, 1947 and was released on 23rd Pausa, 2004 (BK) corresponding to Jan. 7, 1948. On the basis of the above mentioned facts, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to the benefit of grant of pension under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as"the Scheme"), as amended from time to time, which came into force on and with effect from Aug. 15, 1972.

(2.) The precise case of the petitioner is that his case is covered by Cl.(g) of the Scheme which provides for pension being paid to the"Freedom Fighters who suffered imprisonment in movements for merger of erstwhile Princely States within the Indian Union after the 15th Aug. 1947, till the date of accession of the State with the Indian Union". According to the petitioner, since the Princely State of Mandi merged with the Union of India on May 1, 1948, and he was detained for a period of about three and half months from Sept. 24, 1947 to Jan. 7, 1948, for having participated in the movement for the merger of the said State, he is entitled to pension under the aforesaid clause of the Scheme. The petitioner accordingly claims to have made an application to the competent authority on or about Feb. 15, 1977, but since no decision is stated to have been taken thereon, the petitioner made another application on April 13, 1981, and in due course submitted the necessary documents. However, the application was rejected on March 26, 1983, on the ground that his detention was for less than six months. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the respondent (s) be directed to grant to him the pension due under the Scheme.

(3.) On behalf of the first respondent an affidavit-in-reply dt. Aug.27, 1984, has been filed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, (Freedom Fighters Division) reiterating the same stand which was adopted while rejecting the claim for pension advanced by the petitioner. Along with the affidavit-in-reply, the deponent has produced a copy of a communication dt. April 28, 1984, sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India to the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories purporting to clarify the provisions contained in Cl. (g) of the Scheme. The following extract from the said communication being relevant is quoted verbatim: