IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 664 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 28.01.2009 Sohan Singh ...Petitioner versus Union of India & ors. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate, for the petitioner. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner, while seeking the grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension, claims to have undergone imprisonment from 20.10.1942 to 19.11.1943 in Lahore Jail for participation in Quit India Movement. He was allegedly fined also. From the documents on record, it appears that after a fact finding inquiry, the Government of Punjab found the petitioner's claim to be genuine and accordingly recommended the grant of pension. The Union of India, however, turned down the petitioner's claim vide order dated 22.05.2002 (Annexure P-6) pointing out certain discrepancies/contradictions. The petitioner thereafter ran from pillar to post and made certain representations followed by a legal notice dated 29.01.2007 (Annexure P-9). While his legal notice has been responded by the Government of Punjab vide their reply dated 05.03.2007 (Annexure P-10), inter-alia, pointing out that though C.W.P NO. 664 OF 2009 -2- the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension case of the petitioner along with documents was duly recommended to Government of India but the later has rejected the same. In other words, the Government of Punjab still considers the petitioner eligible for the subject pension but the Union of India has refused to accept the said claim. On a further perusal of the legal notice dated 29.01.2007, it is revealed that the petitioner has given an effective reply to the alleged discrepancies/contradictions pointed out by Union of India in its order dated 22.05.2002, while rejecting his claim for the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension. In the light thereof and having regard to the object of the Pension Scheme, I am of the considered view that the authorities in the Union of India are obligated to reconsider the petitioner's claim keeping in view the light of facts/material disclosed in the legal notice and ought to dispose of the petitioner's claim by passing a self-speaking order. Consequently and without expressing any views on merits of the petitioner's claim, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.1 and 2 to take cognizance of the legal notice served on behalf of the petitioner and reconsider and dispose of the petitioner's claim for the grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension, within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of this order. JANUARY 28, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE