CWP No. 22352 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22352 of 2010 Date of decision November 9, 2011 Vinod Kumar grandson of Late Sh. Comrade Amar Nath Indaur ....... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG., Punjab. Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?Yes K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition is to quash the order issued by the claim of the petitioner as a grandson of Comrade Amar Nath Indaur that he should be given a job on the basis of compassionate grounds. In the communication dated 21.10.2010, it is stated that his grand father was not a freedom fighter and that nothing could be done on his application. It is also stated that there is no such policy in the department to give job to a freedom fighter's grandson. Only 1% reservation is made to the children of freedom fighter's grandsons and grand daughters. 2. The petitioner's contention is that the family was devastated by the harsh untruth asserted by saying that his grandfather CWP No. 22352 of 2010 2 was not a freedom fighter. Counsel for the petitioner would refer to the affidavits given by one Ajit Singh and Dalip Singh claiming that Sh. Amar Nath was a co-prisoner with them during the period 20.10.1942 to 10.10.1943. The affidavits are contested by the State as not true and it is stated that the Depty Commissioner, Patiala had originally communicated to the Under Secretary while dealing with the representation given by Amar Nath that he was not a freedom fighter. The document records an incident of Amar Nath appearing in office and stating that Dalip Singh and Ajit Singh could not appear in office and stated that the affidavits were secured by him only to complete the documents of the case but that they had not been imprisoned with him. Copy of the statement who recorded the same is not produced along with this letter dated 30.5.2005 but this is only to note that the affidavits relied on by the petitioner had been seriously contested by the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner also relies on a letter of recommendation by the former President Giani Jail Singh given to Aman Nath during his life time for a gas agency at Patiala as a political sufferer and some newspaper clippings published at the time when Amar Nath was in a state of penury at the time of his death. The communication of the Deputy Secretary, Patiala also records this fact that it was not possible to act on mere newspaper clippings for recording the statement as a freedom fighter. 3. During his life time, it appears that Amar Nath was too proud to even receive pension as a freedom fighter. The petitioner is only interested in removing a blot that the government communication imposed on him and his family that his grandfather was not a freedom fighter. It will be unfair to make such a affirmation if the petitioner's grandfather had been a freedom fighter. It would be revolting to slight the status of freedom fighter even after his death. I will restore the petitioner's belief that his grandfather was a freedom fighter and communication of the CWP No. 22352 of 2010 3 State will not be used against the petitioner if it ever were to be contended by the petitioner that he is entitled to any benefit as a legal heir of the freedom fighter. The petitioner, however, will not be able to secure benefit of any policy without obtaining suitable declaration in a properly instituted civil action by adducing proof of what he asserts making the State as a party, if there is a specific relief which he claims as regards employment. 4. The writ petition is disposed of with these observations. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 9, 2011 archana