IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No. 2096 of 2007 Date of Decision : February 25, 2008 Smt. Kaushalya Devi ....Petitioner Versus Union of India etc. .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Central Government Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No. 4 to 6. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for directing the respondents to decide her representations dated 6.12.2005 and 21.8.2006 (P.15 and P.16) and grant her family pension under the Swatantarta Sanik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for brevity ‘the Scheme’) along with arrears with effect from the date when the other similarly situated persons were granted such benefit. The case of the petitioner is that her husband, namely, Late Shri Munshi Ram joined Army as a Sepoy and took active part in the national freedom struggle. He was discharged from service on 14.8.1946. The C.W.P.No.2096 of 2007 -2- husband of the petitioner was honoured by the Government and Tamar Patra was given to him on account of taking part in the freedom struggle and undergoing imprisonment. However, he was not granted the benefit of pension as has been granted to similarly situated persons. The husband of the petitioner made several representations for grant of pension to the Punjab Government and other concerned authorities. But no action was taken on those representations and ultimately the husband of the petitioner expired on 3.5.1992. After the death of her husband, the petitioner also submitted various representations to the concerned authorities. On 20.7.1995, Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur wrote a letter to the Collector, Hoshiarpur that all the documents relating to the Swatantarta Sainik Pension case of the petitioner had been sent to the Secretary, Punjab. The Under Secretary,Punjab was also requested to grant Freedom Fighter Pension to the petitioner. Inspite of the recommendations made by the Committee in Public Undertaking for grant of family pension under the Scheme, needful had not been done. The petitioner was advised to make direct correspondence with the Government of India, as the recommendation of State Government was not required in the cases of Indian National Army personnel. The petitioner made representations to the respondent-UOI in the years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. The petitioner also sent a legal notice to the respondents for grant family pension under the Scheme. In response thereto, vide order dated 19.5.2005 (P.14) her claim was rejected by respondent No. 2. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 14598 of 2005, which was disposed of on C.W.P.No.2096 of 2007 -3- 13.9.2005 with the liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation with the evidence showing that her husband fulfilled all the necessary criteria for grant of pension under the Scheme. Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation dated 6.12.2005 to the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as the petitioner is more than 90 years of age and still waiting the decision of her representation dated 6.12.2005. The petitioner is fully entitled for the family pension under the Scheme in lieu of the services rendered by her husband for the nation. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 the stand taken is that in pursuance to the order 13.9.2005 passed by this Court in CWP No. 14598 of 2005, no representation from the petitioner has been received in their office. Learned counsel for the petitioner has controverted the assertions made by the respondents in their written statement that the representation in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court on 13.9.2005 in C.W.P. No. 14598 of 2005 was not sent by the petitioner. He has produced the Speed Post Customer Receipt showing that representation to three officers of the respondents were sent, which include Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, Secretary to Government of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Under Secretary, Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, New Delhi. Even otherwise, copy of the aforementioned representation dated 6.12.2005 has already been placed on record as Annexure P.15. Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 states that the representation shall be decided within a period of one month C.W.P.No.2096 of 2007 -4- from today and the decision on the representation shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter under registered A.D. post. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, at this stage. In case, the claim sought by the petitioner does not got the approval of the respondents, then the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court again by filing a fresh petition challenging any such order. The petition is disposed of in view of the above terms. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S. MANN ) February 25, 2008 JUDGE satish