UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Vs. GANGA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant/ Union of India against the judgment of the Court of the learned Single Judge, dated 6.5.2003, allowing the petition filed by respondent No. 1 for the grant of Freedom Fighters ' Pension.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the appellant/Union of India, who was impleaded as respondent No. 1 and as against respondent No. 2, State of H.P., who was impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the petition. It was submitted by the petitioner that the Government of India had promulgated a Scheme known as Freedom Fighters ' Pension Scheme, 1972. The said Scheme was further liberalized in 1980 and renamed as the Swatantarta Sainani Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. It was alleged by the petitioner that he suffered at the hands of the Ruler of Bilaspur for taking part in the Praja Mandal Movement of Bilaspur State as he was externed under the verbal orders of the Raja of Bilaspur from September 1946 to October. 1948. It was alleged that the petitioner falls within the definition of the Freedom Fighter and since his externed period was for over six months, he was entitled to get pension under the Scheme.

(3.) IN reply filed by respondent No. 1/Union of India, they pleaded that the petitioner filed an application, dated 23.1.1995, on two grounds. Firstly, half of his immovable property was forfeited to the State of Bilaspur and secondly, that he was externed from the State of Bilaspur due to participation in Praja Mandal Movement. It was pleaded that the matter was enquired into by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who reported that the petitioner is not entitled to the pension as he had got land in inheritance on 16.12.1952. It was also pleaded that the State Government further reported that the records pertaining to the Praja Mandal Movement were looked into but there was no mention of the name of the petitioner and this Court cannot scrutinize the documents produced in support of the claim and pronounce upon their genuineness.