IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14814 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.02.2010 Santokh Singh ....Petitioner versus Union of India and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Kulwant Kaur Kahlon, Advocate, for respondent No.1-Union of India. Mr.Manohar Lall, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.2. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes. ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The petitioner seeks for appropriate directions for grant of freedom fighter's pension under the provisions of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The entitlement of the claim under the scheme avails to a freedom fighter who has undergone imprisonment of period not less than 6 months. The petitioner's case is that he had participated in the Satyagrah Movement which was one of the notified freedom struggles, the participation of which entitles a person to claim pension under the scheme. The petitioner claims that he had been Civil Writ Petition No.14814 of 2009 - 2 - imprisoned at the Central Jail, Lahore from 21.02.1941 to 13.08.1942. The petitioner also refers to the fact that the Government of Punjab, Department of General Administration (Political III Branch) has recommended his case for grant of pension along with the requisite documents which are necessary to be accompanied with the State recommendations namely, (i) his own affidavit; (ii) Co-prisoners' affidavit namely of Shri Behal Singh son of Shri Chattar Singh and Shri Bachan Singh son of Shri Wasakha Singh of District Patiala. 2. In the communication sent by the State Government by way of recommendation, dated 28.10.1993, it has also been stated that the imprisonment records are not available and the Government is, after local enquiries, satisfied that the petitioner has undergone the sufferings genuinely. But the petitioner comes to Court after all these years complaining that in spite of the recommendation from the State Government, he has not been paid the freedom fighter's pension under the scheme. The fact that the petitioner has been stated to have been granted freedom fighter's pension is a further proof of the fact that he is a genuine freedom fighter. The petitioner claims that he has made representation but it had not been attended to. In the matter relating to payment of freedom fighter's pension, delay cannot forfeit his rights. The pension to a freedom fighter is not to be taken as a mere gratis. It is a nation's way of repaying the debt owed to the freedom fighter's sacrifices. The freedom that we enjoy, it must always be remembered, was at the cost of sufferings by persons like the petitioner. Civil Writ Petition No.14814 of 2009 - 3 - 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent states that the relevant records which is purported to have been sent by the State Government are not available with them and that the 1st respondent would consider the grant of pension if a fresh application is sent by the State Government. This will only trigger a new process for further delays and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate that the copy of the communication which the petitioner has, shall itself be taken as proof of all the necessary documents which the scheme requires. The 1st respondent has notice of the petitioner's plea through this writ petition and it shall not become necessary for the petitioner to apply afresh to the respondent. Suffice it is for the petitioner to forward merely a copy of the communication of the Government of Punjab, Department of General Administration to the Under Secretary to the Government of India, dated 28.10.1993 duly authenticated and the 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass orders for payment of pension within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the receipt of the communication to them. 4. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 19.02.2010 sanjeev