CWP No.15581 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.15581 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.08.2010 **** Mohinder Kaur . . . . Petitioner VS. Union of India & Anr. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. KK Kahlon, Advocate for UOI Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl. AG Punjab for respondent No.2 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is wife of freedom fighter late Sh. Joginder Singh, who unfortunately passed away on 13.09.2003. She seeks a direction to the Union of India to consider her claim for the grant of freedom fighter pension/family pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. (2). The husband of the petitioner participated in ‘Quit India Movement’ and remained imprisoned in Central Jail, Lahore during that period. His claim for Freedom Fighter’s Pension was got verified and accepted by the State of Punjab who sanctioned the CWP No.15581 of 2009.doc - 2 – State’s freedom fighters pension vide PPO No.7553FF/Punjab dated 21.02.1994 and further recommended his case for Central pension to respondent No.1 – Union of India. No decision was apparently taken on those recommendations during the lifetime of Joginder Singh. (3). While dealing with a similar situation, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.12995 of 2009 (Harbhajan Kaur v. Union of India and others) held as follows:- “……Cases of consideration of claims for pension under the Swantantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme will obtain seriousness in the manner that it deserves only if the Government starts thinking that it is not an act of charity that they are doing in acceding to pleas for pension. It is, on the other hand, a Society’s repayment of gratitude to persons, who had shed life and blood for our country. The inertness of the Union is appalling, to say the least, and before the Court, it is absolutely indifferent. The petitioner is entitled to pension and it is directed that the respondents acts on the recommendation made by the State Government by the reference referred to above and issues to the petitioner the benefits under the Scheme in right earnest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The petitioner shall be at liberty to secure the copy of the recommendation from the State and forward the same along with the order on which the 1st respondent is bound to act without any further letter for delay.” CWP No.15581 of 2009.doc - 3 – (4). It, thus, appears that late Sh. Joginder Singh was entitled to the Central pension also till he was alive. There appears to be some convincing logic in the petitioner’s contention that she being dependent on her deceased husband, is entitled to the subject pension and/or family pension unless there is an express bar under the Scheme. No such provision has been brought to the notice of this Court. (5). Consequently, while allowing the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the claim of late Joginder Singh for Central pension till he was alive in terms of the above-reproduced order, I further direct the Union of India to consider the petitioner’s claim for pension/family pension with effect from the date of death of her husband and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Ordered accordingly. (7). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 24.08.2010 vishal shonkar