HARI KRISHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner claims to be a Freedom Fighter of the erstwhile Princely State of Bilaspur merged with the State of Himachal Pradesh and claims pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme 1972, as liberlised by Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. Since his claim has been rejected by the Respondent No. 1, Union of India by order dated 6th March, 1982 (Annexure RB/1) on the ground that there was no acceptable evidence in that behalf, the Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legal validity thereof.

(2.) The Petitioner specifically submits that he was an integral part of the freedom struggle launched by the Congress Party for unification of India and integration of the princely States with the Union of India and has faced imprisonment, externment and other difficulties in that process. According to him, he was a member of the Praja Mandal Movement at Bilaspur and was the Joint Secretary of its Amritsar Branch. Because of his participation in the Freedom Struggle, he was externed from the State of Bilaspur by the Ruler thereof. According to him, the erstwhile Ruler of Bilaspur had resisted the merger of State of Bilaspur with the Union of India and the said attitude necessitated the merger movement in the said State. The Petitioner claims to be the participant in the said movement and suffered externment. According to him, one Daulat Raid Sankhian, another freedom fighter and a Minister of the State of Himachal Pradesh, was also a freedom fighter alongwith him and had certified that the Petitioner had, been externed from erstwhile State of Bilaspur in the year 1946 and could come back to the said State only after its merger. The said D.R. Sankhian, according to the Petitioner, is a recognised freedom-fighter and recipient of the pension and could for that reason certify the bonafides of the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the State Government has also recognised- the Petitioner as a freedom-fighter and has granted him the. free-travel-pass to travel in the State Transport Buses besides a monthly pension of Rs. 250/-. It is also submitted that the Petitioner's name figures as a freedom-fighter in the text-book prescribed by the Respondent, state Government of Himachal Pradesh for class IV students. Inspite of all these certificates and recognition, the Respondent Union of India is hot recognising the Petitioner as a freedom fighter and has denied him the benefits of the aforesaid scheme. The denial, according to the Petitioner, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court should exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction and direct Respondents No. 1 and 2 by a writ in the nature of mandamus to grant him the pension under the aforesaid Scheme.

(3.) This Court by its order dated 21.11.1994 required the Respondents' to produce the original record of the Petitioner's case, which has been done. On a perusal of the aforesaid record, it is clear to this Court that the Petitioner's case was recommended for consideration of the Respondent No. 1 and grant of pension alongwith four other cases. The letter of the Respondent State Government which has been filed as Annexure RA-1, indicates that all the five persons have produced evidence to show that they had suffered harassment during the freedom struggle and were externed from the Bilaspur State by the erstwhile Ruler of the said State. The letter further mentions that though the official documents are not available, certificates from co-prisoners etc. have been produced. The letter further states that "it is revealed from the enclosed documents that these freedom fighters had suffered much for taking part in the freedom movement to liberate India and on account of this these freedom fighters are entitled to the pension." This recommendation was considered at various-levels in the office of the Respondent No. 2 and eventually rejected on the ground that the Petitioner has not produced "any acceptable documents evidence" of the claims suffering. This was communicated to the Petitioner by the order impugned. The Respondents have maintained the same stand in this Court and submitted that even the further evidence produced by the Petitioner in this Court does not satisfy the necessary requirements. It is, therefore, claimed that the petition deserves to be dismissed.