SHANTI DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a widow of 76 years of age, averred in the writ petition that her husband late Mool Chand Tanwar actively participated in Arya Samaj Movement in later 1930's within the erstwhile Nizam State of Hyderabad. He suffered imprisonment for one year and three months. In the year 1972 the Union of India introduced Freedom Fighter's Pension Scheme, 1972 (for short `pension Scheme' ). Late husband of the petitioner applied for the pension under the provisions of Pension Scheme. THE benefits of the pension were denied on the ground of non recognition of Hyderabad Arya Samaj Movement as equivalent to freedom independence movement. On further directions by respondent No. 3 the husband of petitioner submitted certificates of his suffering. However, on the death of her husband the petitioner was granted pension provided to dependents of freedom fighter, vide order dated December 2, 1989. THE State Government made recommendation to grant freedom fighter pension. Vide letter dated August, 1988 the claim of Samman pension was rejected on the ground of limitation. THE application for pension was rejected by Union of India vide letter dated February 6, 1991. After the Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated on September 13, 1991 (1991) 4 SCC 366 that Arya Samaj Movement was part and parcel of freedom struggle, the petitioner filed writ petition that was decided on July 29, 2002 whereby the respondents were directed to consider the case of petitioner for grant of pension. THE petitioner was asked to submit original jail certificate of her husband, which was submitted by the petitioner on December 10, 2002. Even then vide order dated April 16, 2003 the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. THE petitioner in the instant writ petition seeks direction in the name of respondents to release Freedom Fighter Samman Pension with effect from August 1, 1980.

(2.) THE respondent No. 3 filed reply and submitted that the imprisonment of husband of petitioner could not verified. THE pension was allowed to petitioner under Freedom Fighter Samman Pension Rules, 1959, but the claim of petitioner under the Pension Scheme as been recommended to Central Government, who are responsible for such pension. THE respondents No. 1 & 2 filed affidavit of Mahendra Kumar, Section Officer in Ministry of Home Affairs and stated that for Samman Pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 the Freedom fighters are to fulfil certain conditions. He stated that earlier the application of petitioner's husband was not in proper format. In compliance of the order in writ petition No. 1671/97 the claim of the petitioner was considered and was rejected by a speaking order, as the jail certificate of petitioner's husband could not prove his imprisonment for a minimum period of six months. On the verification report of State Government the case of petitioner was again considered but she was not found eligible for the pension under the provisions of Pension Scheme. It is further stated that from the jail record it was found that the husband of petitioner remained in Aurangabad jail for a period of less than six months, therefore the petitioner is not entitled to pension.