IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1650 (M/S) of 2007 Smt. Panuli Devi …Petitioner Versus State & others …Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard S.K. Posti, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Arya, the learned Brief Holder for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The petitioner’s husband Govind Ballabh Pandey was a member of the Indian National Army (Azaad Hind Fauj). He went missing in action. The petitioner is the widow and when she became aware of her rights, namely, that she is entitled to a Freedom Fighters pension, she applied for pension under the "Swatantrata Sangram Senaniyon Aur Unke Parivaron Ko Diye Jane Wale Anudan Tatha Pensiono Ko Viniyamit Karne Ke Sambandh Mein Niyamawali” (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1975). By a letter dated 4th September, 2004, the authority directed the petitioner to apply afresh in the prescribed proforma enclosing two certificates of co-prisoners indicating that the petitioner’s husband was a political sufferer. The petitioner, accordingly, applied in the prescribed proforma on 18th September, 2004 and this application remained pending which forced the petitioner to file the present writ petition in the year 2006 praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant family pension under the 2 Rules of 1975, from the date when it became applicable. The Additional Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, respondent no. 1 has filed a counter affidavit indicating that the petitioner did not file a certificate to the effect that her husband was a sepoy in the Indian National Army (Azaad Hind Fauj) and consequently, in the absence of such a certificate, no pension could be given under the Rules of 1975. Even though, the petitioner had applied in the prescribed proforma and had given two certificates of co-prisoners indicating that the petitioner’s husband was a member of the Indian National Army, which was the pre-requisite requirement and which certificates have not been disputed by the respondents in their counter affidavit, nonetheless, in view of the averments made in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit that no certificate was filed that the petitioner’s husband was the sepoy in the Indian National Army and faced with this situation, the Court, by an order dated 2nd August, 2010, directed the Secretary of Department of Home Affairs to verify the fact about the participation of the petitioner’s husband in the Indian National Army. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Court, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the District Magistrate, Almora, respondent no. 2, indicating that pursuant to the order of the writ court, an official was deputed, who approached the All India I.N.A. Committee at Delhi and after verifying the same from the record, a certificate was 3 issued by the General Secretary of the All India I.N.A. Committee dated 27th September, 2010, indicating that the petitioner’s husband Govind Ballabh Pandey was a member of the Indian National Army and that he was a political sufferer and was entitled to all the concessions allowed to other political sufferers vide Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, letter dated 23rd May, 1961. The respondent no. 1 has filed the Rules of 1975 as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit. Rule 2 (Kha) of the Rules indicates that a Freedom Fighter includes a person who has been a member of the Indian National Army (Azaad Hind Fauj) and consequently, entitled for pension/family pension under the said Rules. In view of the aforesaid, since the respondents have now themselves found and have obtained a certificate to this effect that the petitioner’s husband was a member of the Indian National Army, consequently, in view of the Rules of 1975, the petitioner is entitled for family pension. It has come on record that the petitioner is now 97 years old, consequently, the Court directs that the benefit given by the Government should be given to her immediately without any further delay. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued directing the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, respondent no. 1, to issue necessary directions for the release of the family pension along with arrears, if any, in favour of the petitioner forthwith without any undue 4 delay within two weeks from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. The respondent no. 1 must realize that the petitioner is a widow of 97 years and is not expected to run around from pillar to post to get her benefit, which is statutorily required to be given. The respondent should ensure that necessary remittance is given to the petitioner at her address without any further delay. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 04-04-2011 Salim/