Civil Writ Petition No.16224 of 2007 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16224 of 2007 Date of decision: September 16, 2008. Malwinder Jit Singh Waraich ...Petitioner v. Union of India ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Petitioner in person. Shri Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for the respondent(s). ORDER T.S. Thakur, CJ – (Oral): This petition has been filed in public interest. It prays for a mandamus directing the respondent to undertake a review of what is known as the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. It also prays for such further direction as the Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. The Government of India appear to have formulated a scheme for the grant of pension to freedom fighters way back in the year 1972. The Civil Writ Petition No.16224 of 2007 -: 2 :- scheme provided for grant of pension to living freedom fighters and to their families if they were no more alive and to the families of the martyrs. In the year 1980, the scheme was liberalized and re-named as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 made effective from 1st August, 1980. A copy of the said scheme, produced before us in the course of hearing by Mr. Waraich, enumerates the amount of pension payable to those eligible as also the conditions of eligibility for such payment. The scheme also elaborates the eligibility conditions for the dependents and stipulates the procedure for making applications as also the procedure for proving the claim made by a freedom fighter or the dependent of a freedom fighter or martyr entitled to the benefit of the scheme. In the year 1988, the Parliament appears to have appointed a Standing Committee under the convenorship of Shri Moti Lal Vohra, Member of Parliament and Member of the Committee to look into the scheme and make suitable amends in the same. The Committee, however, stood dissolved without submitting a report on account of the dissolution of the 12th Lok Sabha. After the constitution of the 13th Lok Sabha, the Committee of Home Affairs was reconstituted on 31st December, 1999 and a Sub-Committee reconstituted under the convenership of Shri Hans Raj Bhardwaj, the Law Minister of India, who was then a Member of Parliament. The Sub-Committee headed by Shri Bhardwaj appears to have examined the matter and communicated its views to the main Committee. The main Committee considered and adopted its report on Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme in its sitting held on 9th October, 2002. A report was finally submitted to the Parliament on 21st November, 2002. With the submission of the said report, the main Committee and the Sub- Civil Writ Petition No.16224 of 2007 -: 3 :- Committee both ceased to exist. The petitioner, who appears in person, argued that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat of the Parliament inviting views, suggestions and comments from individuals, institutions and organizations interested in sending the same, he had submitted his views and suggestions in December, 1992, a copy whereof has been appended by him as Annexure P-3 to the writ petition. A perusal of the communication addressed by the petitioner to the Convener of the Sub-Committee would show that the petitioner had made several suggestions including a suggestion regarding inclusion of the Gaddar Movement in the list of movements recognized for the grant of Samman pension which suggestion was accepted by the Committee. Certain other suggestions relating to the martyrs and lifers and those who had undergone lesser sentence than life sentence were also made, including a suggestion for modification of the qualifications of dependents and liberalization of the scheme so as to include non-lineal or collateral heirs. The petitioner's grievance now appears to be that although the suggestions had been invited by and submitted to the Sub-Committee, referred to earlier, the petitioner was neither heard in support of the said suggestions nor was any meaningful contribution or modification made in the scheme finally submitted to the Parliament. The petitioner, therefore, prays for a mandamus directing the re-examination of the scheme, for, it is only by that process that complete justice can be done to the freedom fighters, their legal heirs and also the legal heirs of the martyrs who laid down their lives for the sake of the country. Appearing in person, Mr. Waraich submitted that a fresh look Civil Writ Petition No.16224 of 2007 -: 4 :- on the scheme had remained meaningless as nothing material had been altered in the scheme under review by the Sub-Committee. He urged that while in the original scheme of the year 1980, there was a last date prescribed for submission of the applications, the review had continued with the said provision in the teeth of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukand Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, 1993 Supp(3) SCC 2. He submitted that the continuance of a provision which was stood deleted by reason of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the said case, must be taken as an offence not only to the judicial process but also to the freedom fighters and martyrs who laid down their lives for the sake of the country. He submitted that he was in touch with a number of freedom fighters who had been deprived of the benefit of the scheme on one ground or the other and that it was in the larger interest of those who had made sacrifices that a review of the entire scheme was undertaken. On behalf of the respondent, Mr. Gurpreet Singh argued that the scheme in question had been the subject matter of a close scrutiny by the Supreme Court not only in Mukand Lal Bhandari's case (supra) but also in a number of other decisions, including one in Union of India v. Avtar Singh, (2006)6 SC 493. He submitted that the Supreme Court had not found fault with the scheme or the parameters within which it was to be operative for the benefit of all those who had made sacrifices in the freedom struggle of this country, including the heirs of the martyrs. He urged that the Parliamentary Sub-Committee had examined the issue of amendment and/or modification of the scheme and submitted a report considered suitable by them to the Parliament for its approval and that there was no forum where the suggestions made by the petitioner could now be presented Civil Writ Petition No.16224 of 2007 -: 5 :- or considered. The petitioner's anxiety for a speaking order on the suggestions made by him was, therefore, wholly misplaced. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made before us. As rightly pointed out by the petitioner, the pension scheme in question has been the subject matter of numerous pronouncements from the Apex Court as also from different High Courts in the country. The Supreme Court has no doubt placed a liberal interpretation upon the scheme by removing the impediment of limitation earlier stipulated of the same. The decision of their Lordships in Mukand Lal Bhandari's case is directly on that point. Having said so, we must mention that there is no other aspect of the scheme, as it now stands, which could be said to be unfair, unreasonable or unworkable to warrant our intervention in exercise of our public interest jurisdiction. The scheme in question was an executive measure which the Government of India had adopted to help the freedom fighters, their families and also the families and dependents of the martyrs. There is no statutory flavour in the scheme. It is a scheme which was introduced with a view to recognizing the services rendered by the freedom fighters and the martyrs and in some measure help them overcoming the financial constraints that they or their families may be facing. The entire exercise intended to review the scheme at the level of a Parliamentary Committee and Sub-Committees appointed for the purpose, was meant to make the scheme more effective, liberal and beneficial for those who deserved the pension envisaged thereunder. If any such exercise has not resulted in any substantial benefit in one or the other form or if the Committee has not found favour with anyone of the suggestions mooted before it by the petitioner or others like him, it is not possible for a Writ Civil Writ Petition No.16224 of 2007 -: 6 :- Court to direct reconsideration of the suggestions or demand a speaking order from the Sub-Committee. That apart, the entire process has since been concluded and the Sub-Committee which conducted and completed the process has since been wound up. There is, therefore, nothing that can possibly be done at this stage. While we appreciate the anxiety of the petitioner, who claims to be a historian and a well wisher of the freedom fighters, we cannot help saying that the present petition appears to us to be utterly misconceived. If it were any other petitioner, we may have described these proceedings as an abuse of process of law but keeping in view the fact that we do not doubt the bona fides of Mr. Waraich, we do not do so. We would remain content with dismissing this petition, without any order as to costs. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. [ T.S. Thakur ] Chief Justice September 16, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge