IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No.240 of 2009 in/and L.P.A. No.51 of 2009 Date of decision: 16.2.2009 The State of Punjab etc. -----Appellant Vs. Natha Singh. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl.A.G., Punjab for appellants. Mr. G.C. Bedi, Advocate for the respondent. ----- ORDER: 1. Delay condoned. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits. 3. This appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab against judgment of learned Single Judge, directing grant of Sainik Samman Pension to the writ petitioner with effect from the date he applied. It was also directed that arrears be paid with interest @ 9% per annum from the date it is due till the date of payment. 4. Case of the petitioner is that he had participated in Quit India Movement in the year 1942-43. He remained in jail from 22.10.1942 to 20.10.1943 with other freedom fighters including Kala LPA No.51 of 2009 Singh, Karnail Singh, Bachan Singh, Lachhman Singh and Kharak Singh. Government of India framed a Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme. The writ petitioner applied on 19.11.1981. The scheme was later on relaxed to provide that evidence of certificates of co-prisoners could also be accepted. Since the writ petitioner was not satisfied with the decision on his claim, he filed writ petition in this Court in the year 1996. 5. The writ petition was contested, relying on a circular of Union of India, Annexure R-1, to the effect that certificates issued by Kesar Singh should not be considered. The writ petitioner had relied upon certificates of persons who were ineligible to issue such certificates. Gopal Singh and Kesar Singh were specifically debarred from issuing certificates as per letter dated 17.7.1997 Annexure R-4. 6. Learned Single Judge held that when the petitioner applied for pension in the year 1981, Gopal Singh and Kesar Singh had not been declared ineligible. It was held that though normally, case should have been sent for re-consideration, having regard to delay that has already taken place, the writ petitioner should be held entitled to grant of pension. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that State Government pension could be granted only to freedom fighters who are already getting Central Government pension or whose cases have been recommended to Government of India. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Union of India and another v. Kaushalaya Devi 2007(9) SCC 525 and Union of India and ors. 2 LPA No.51 of 2009 v. Kashiswar Jana AIR 2008 SC 1987, distinguishing the earlier judgment in Mukand Lal Bhandari v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 2127, that where claim is based on secondary evidence, pension could be granted only from the date of order and not from the date of application. 8. Question for consideration is whether certificate of co- prisoners credibility whereof is not beyond doubt, could be accepted merely on the ground that certificates were prior to the date of instructions debarring them from issuing certificates? 9. We are of the view that even though certificates may be of date prior to the date on which such persons were debarred from issuing certificates, the fact that such persons did not have credibility, could not be ignored. If the writ petitioner was not aware about such matter, the petitioner could be given a fresh opportunity, but such certificates cannot be accepted. In Union of India v. M.S. Mohammed 2007(12) SCC 527, it was held that disputed question of genuineness of certificate for eligibility of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension, should be left to be decided by the competent authority instead of being decided in a writ petition. 10. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. 11. However, we direct the competent authority to reconsider the matter and take a fresh decision after considering all relevant facts and circumstances and after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner will be entitled to appear in 3 LPA No.51 of 2009 person or through his counsel or authorized representative before the competent authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. The petitioner may so appear on 10.3.2009 at 11-00 A.M. 12. The Deputy Commissioner, Patiala may dispose of the matter on that date or inform the petitioner about any other date or time, but the decision may be taken within one month from the said date. 13. If the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order that may be passed, he will be at liberty to take his remedies in accordance with law. 14. The appeal is disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 16, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ashwani JUDGE 4