CWP No.7409 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 1.7.2010 Satwant Kaur ...Petitioner VERSUS Union of India & Another ...Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.RS Bains, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.S.Sandhu, Advocate for UOI-respondent no.1 Ms.Kavita Arora, AAG, Punjab for respondent no.2 Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner's claim for Freedom Fighters Pension under the Scheme formulated by the Government of India and the State of Punjab has been stopped, compelling him to file this petition in this Court. The petitioner claims her husband-Sat Pal Monga to be a Freedom Fighter. It is claimed that her husband took active part in Farid Kot State Praja Mandal Movement & also underwent imprisonment and remained underground during struggle for freedom of India. He was sentenced to one year imprisonment but was released under Harindra Nehru Pack. The Government of India started Scheme in the year 1980 called as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The State of Punjab also framed Punjab State Sawtantarta Samman Sainik Pension Scheme, 1982. Husband CWP No.7409 of 2009 2 of the petitioner applied for pension. He was granted the pension. In the meanwhile, husband of the petitioner died on 15.12.1998. After the death of her husband, the petitioner was paid the pension till January 2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that vide letter dated 30.12.1999 issued by respondent no.1 and vide letter dated 25.2.2005 issued by respondent no.2, pension of the petitioner was stopped. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Balwant Singh vs. Secretariat Incharge Freedom Fighter and anr. (CWP No.1668 of 2009 decided on 23.8.2010) wherein following observations/directions have been made:- “Freedom Fighters are class apart who may be very few in number and may be at the fag end of their life. It is more than 62 years since the days of struggle is over and these persons are still clamouring for the small benefits. Whatever the country has achieved is because of contribution of such like persons who participated in the Freedom movement staking even their own lives ignoring their family and other interest for a better future not only for themselves, but for the country. Even though the Government of India and some State Governments formulated Schemes for grant of pension to Freedom Fighters, but the standard of proof/evidence asked for from such persons is a matter of concern. These persons at this stage of CWP No.7409 of 2009 3 their life cannot be expected to move from pillar to post and collect the kind of evidence to support their claim for Freedom Fighters Pension. From the reply and the Scheme which envisaged the proof in support of their claim, even creates a doubt of the sincerity of the Government to grant any such benefit to the Freedom Fighters. Their credentials are being doubted and they are asked to collect and procure the evidence which may be difficult for them at this stage to find. It would have been more appropriate if the Government of India or the State Government as the case may be, had appointed some authorities to examine their claims at local level and make recommendations to the concerned authorities. The only evidence which these persons could procure is perhaps the affidavits of their co-prisoners if alive which also seems to be a difficult proposition, keeping in view the lapse of period since the freedom movement. At the first place such like persons are made to run from pillar to post and even they are able to procure some evidence, the same is doubted and tested like the evidence in criminal cases. As a matter fact, Central Government/State Government should have created some agency or mechanism at district level or at any other appropriate level for CWP No.7409 of 2009 4 examining their claims and to facilitate verification of the claims by such created agency, rather than asking the claimants to procure the evidence. Till such mechanism is placed in position, the claim of petitioner needs to be dealt with in the manner here-in-after noticed. The petitioner has named a number of persons whose claims have been recommended and with whom the petitioner had acquaintance. The claim of the petitioner could very well be verified from such persons whose claims have been accepted by the State Government or the Government of India and who have been granted Freedom Fighters Pension. The Government of India has undertaken to consider the claim of the petitioner. Even in the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in earlier writ petition, the State Government had been asked to recommend the case of the petitioner after verification. The State Government has already forwarded the claim of the petitioner to Government of India. From the reply of the State Government, it appears that the petitioner lodged his claim in the year 1981 and till 2001, State Government and Government of India are in correspondence. It is almost 30 years that the petitioner lodged his claim for freedom fighters CWP No.7409 of 2009 5 pension, but nothing has been done. In view of the plight of the petitioner and such like other persons, it is deemed appropriate that his claim be finalised within the shortest possible time. The petitioner shall approach the Deputy Commissioner of the district where he originally belonged in Punjab. The Deputy Commissioner shall conduct a discreet enquiry within a period of one month on the basis of the information to be supplied by the petitioner and submit his report to the Secretary, Incharge Freedom Fighters Branch, Government of Punjab. If the findings of the Deputy Commissioner are positive, in favour of the petitioner, Secretary Incharge shall forward the same to the Government of India recommending grant of Freedom Fighters Pension. Government of India shall accordingly pass appropriate orders within a period of two months thereafter. In the event, the findings of the Deputy Commissioner are against the petitioner, he will be communicated accordingly.” In the present case, it is admitted case of the parties that the husband of the petitioner was receiving the pension and even after the death of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner was even drawing the family pension. In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction CWP No.7409 of 2009 6 to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner needs in the light of the aforesaid observations/directions and to grant the consequential relief accordingly (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 01.7. 2010 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 7