CWP NO. 4695 OF 1995. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4695 of 1995. Date of Decision: 05th December, 2008. Narinder Singh Petitioner through Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents through Mr. H.K.Sandhu, Advocate. Mr. G.S.Attariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 26th March, 1990 and 23rd December, 1994 [Annexures P-4 and P-12] whereby the Freedom Fighter's pension, earlier granted to him, has been withdrawn. The petitioner also seeks a Mandamus for restoration of the said pension with all consequential benefits. [2]. It was with a view to honour and respect those thousands of freedom fighters who participated in the freedom struggle of the Nation, that the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972 was introduced by the Union of India. This scheme was further liberalized in the year 1980 and was re-captioned as “Swantantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1982”. [3]. Asserting himself to be a Freedom Fighter who remained behind the bars in Central Jail, Lahore in the pre-independence era, CWP NO. 4695 OF 1995. ::-2-:: that the petitioner also applied under the 1982 Scheme and sent two sets of the application to the Union of India and the Government of Punjab. In order to establish his claim as a bona-fide Freedom Fighter, the petitioner disclosed in the application that [i] he remained underground from 27th June, 1941 to 15th July, 1942 and [ii] underwent actual imprisonment in the Central Jail, Lahore from 21st August, 1942 to 20th October, 1943 for taking part in the “Individual Satyagrah” and “Quit India Movement”. According to the petitioner, Dharam Singh son of Niranjan Singh resident of village Dhuman, District Patiala and Kartar Singh son of Jhanda Singh, resident of village Hadayatpura, PO Urdan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala were also his co-prisoners from 21st August, 1942 to 20th October, 1943 and 20th October, 1942 to 20th October, 1943 respectively. The petitioner's co-prisoners had already been awarded Tamar Patras by the Central Government on their recognition as bona-fide Freedom Fighters. Besides this, the petitioner also appended the affidavits of three more co-prisoners, namely, [i] Naurang Singh, Ex.-MLA, Punjab, [ii] Sher Singh and [iii] Bhagat Singh. All of them had also allegedly suffered imprisonment along with the petitioner in the Central Jail, Lahore. [4]. As contemplated under the 1982 Scheme, the petitioner's application was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala on 9th January, 1986 for verification of its contents. The Deputy Commissioner, Patiala asked the petitioner to appear and produce evidence/material regarding his imprisonment. The State Government had specifically asked the Deputy Commissioner, CWP NO. 4695 OF 1995. ::-3-:: Patiala to verify as to [i] whether both the co-prisoners had undergone imprisonment for more than one year during the Freedom Struggle of the country? [ii] whether they were getting pension regularly from the Government of India? and [iii] whether they were holders of Tamar Patras?. [5]. The petitioner and so did his co-prisoners, appeared before the Deputy Commissioner, submitted their affidavits and copies of the Tamar Patras. The Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, after verification of the facts and being satisfied that the petitioner was a bona-fide freedom fighter, sent his recommendations to the State Government. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was granted pension by the Union of India vide their Memo dated 8th September, 1988 w.e.f. 1st August, 1980 to 31.5.1980 @ Rs.300/- per month, followed by further enhancement to Rs.500/- per month w.e.f. 1st June, 1985. [6]. The afore-mentioned honour, however, remained short lived and in fact had a lot of insult and humiliation in store for the petitioner. The Central Government passed an order-cum-show cause dated 26th March, 1990 [Annexure P-4] suspending the petitioner's pension pending inquiry. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply, if any, as according to the Union of India [i] the petitioner was not a bona-fide freedom fighter and he never went and remained underground against the warrant of arrest in connection with 'freedom struggle'; [ii] he had not furnished the affidavit duly sworn in before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class; [iii] the details of his age and residence as mentioned in the application/affidavit were incorrect. The petitioner contested these allegations and submitted CWP NO. 4695 OF 1995. ::-4-:: his reply. Strange was the functioning of the Central Government, who firstly restored the petitioner's pension vide an order dated 22nd December, 1994 [Annexure P-11] which reads as follows:- “Pursuant to the judgment dated 8.5.94 in the Civil Writ Petition No.14951/1993 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, I am directed to invite your kind attention to the sanction letter of even number dated 8.9.1988 [Code No.16140] granting a pension of Rs.300/- [Three Hundred only] per month to the above named pensioner and to say that this pension was suspended vide letter of even number dated 26.3.1990 till further orders. In compliance of the Court order sanction of the President is accorded to grant the pension from the date of the orders i.e. 9.5.94. A copy of the judgment is enclosed for taking action accordingly as per the directions of the Court. It may please be ensured that accrued arrears of pension and month-wise pension subsequently may be deposited by 10th of every month in the petitioner's Account No.19556/27A with the State Bank of Patiala at Rajpura with the intimation to the pensioner and it may be ensured that the petitioner may not withdraw the amount till the matter is decided by this Ministry. 2. Other terms and conditions of our earlier sanction will remain unaltered”. [7]. The very next day, i.e., on 23rd December, 1994, however, the impugned order [Annexure P-12] came to be issued holding that the petitioner claimed to have participated in the Akali Lehar Morcha whereas in a subsequent application his claim was little different and so was the year in which the 'Quit India Movement' started. The respondents also informed the petitioner that notwithstanding the recommendations by the State Government or the West Punjab CWP NO. 4695 OF 1995. ::-5-:: Committee, he was not found eligible for the reason that his co- prisoners-cum-certifiers themselves were ineligible as their own pension claims stood suspended and that the pension of Shri Kartar Singh son of Jhanda Singh was suspended on account of the manipulations of his alleged sufferings from Multan to Lahore Jail. [8]. The second order dated 23rd December, 1994 [Annexure P-12] denying the pension, has prompted the petitioner to approach this Court. [9]. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed by the Union of India, State of Punjab and the Accountant General, Punjab. [10]. Whereas, the State of Punjab has not disputed the petitioner's eligibility for the subject-pension, it has expressed its helplessness on the plea that the Union of India has declined the petitioner's claim. [11]. The Union of India has reiterated the following three grounds to cast doubts on the petitioner's claim to be a freedom fighter:- “[a] His claim in the two applications differed and even the events of the freedom struggle in which he was stating having participated differed; [b] The Quit India Movement did not start in 1941 as a result of which he had stated having underground; [c] pension of the certifier stands suspended on account of manipulation of his sufferings from Multan to Lahore jail. The pension of the other certifier by whom the petitioner was certified as his co-prisoner also stands suspended”. [12]. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some CWP NO. 4695 OF 1995. ::-6-:: length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the authorities in the Union of India have dealt with the petitioner's claim in an unfair manner with casual approach. The 'Freedom Fighter's' pension is more a honour than granting of monetary benefits. Those who made sacrifices for the freedom of our nation and bore unbearable torture and atrocities at the hands of suppressors did not do so expecting any monetary gains. None of them went before the Central Government with a begging bowl either to grant pension or any other financial assistance. The Scheme which is laced with all the technicalities of red-tapism, could have been a symbol of the minimum respect for the known and un- sung heroes of the freedom movement. [13]. The Scheme puts the authorities under a very onerous duty to take all the extra-ordinary measures before conferring any such honour. There can indeed be no doubt that only genuine freedom fighters deserve to be honoured to be set as an example for the young generations. The authorities ought to run through all the possible means and channels of information before declaring some one a 'Freedom Fighter'. Suffice it to say that stripping off such a status is more odious then honour itself. It necessarily implies to act over-cautiously while granting or withdrawing the status of 'Freedom Fighter'. In my considered view, the golden rule that may be applied to resolve such a dilema would be to permit the authorities to de-robe a person of the status of 'Freedom Fighter' only if it was secured through fraudulent means. It would necessarily imply that the status once conferred, can not be withdrawn on re-appraisal of the same CWP NO. 4695 OF 1995. ::-7-:: evidence or material which led to the grant thereof. [14]. Nothing prevented the Union of India to put into motion its own machinery for verification of the claims under the Scheme. Diplomatic channels could be resorted to verify the records of the jails presently located in Pakistan. The Union of India, in its wisdom, decided to depend and rely upon the factual conclusions drawn by the State Authorities. In the case in hand, the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala on an inquiry found the petitioner's claim to be genuine and bona-fide. Even at present, the State Government does not doubt the petitioner's bona-fide as a 'freedom fighter'. [15]. Adverting to the objections raised on behalf of the Union of India against the petitioner's claim, it is stated that the events of the freedom struggle in which the petitioner allegedly participated are differing in the two applications submitted by him. The petitioner is an illiterate person. In 1986-87 when he applied, the events were more than 45 years old. Whether the 'Quit India Movement' began in the year 1941 or in 1942 is not of material bearing. What is important was as to whether or not the petitioner remained imprisoned in the Central Jail, at Lahore w.e.f. 21st August, 1942 to 20th October, 1943 in relation to a cause referable to the freedom movement. There is not even a whisper in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was not behind the bars during the aforesaid period. Similarly, it is no where averred that the petitioner was in jail for a reason other than his participation in anti-British movement. The fact as to whether the petitioner was arrested for participation in 'Akali-Lehar Morcha' or 'Satyagraha' is also insignificant as both have been recognized as CWP NO. 4695 OF 1995. ::-8-:: the events of the 'freedom struggle'. The only mistake which appears to have been committed is that the period during which the petitioner remained underground from June, 1941 onwards has also been erroneously assumed by the petitioner to be the period of 'Quit India Movement' though the said movement had started when the petitioner was already in custody. This takes us to the third sweeping allegation that the very Certifiers-cum-co-prisoners of the petitioner were also manipulators and their pension was later on suspended. Firstly, the written statement is totally silent as to what were the allegations against Dharam Singh and when was his pension suspended. So far as Kartar Singh son of Jhanda Singh is concerned, the petitioner has taken a categoric stand that the last pension received by him was on 4th February, 1986 and soon thereafter Kartar Singh unfortunately expired on 26th February, 1986. The petitioner in this regard has placed on record the Pension Payment Order of Kartar Singh as also his Death Certificate [Annexures P13 and P14]. [16]. Could the pension of Kartar Singh be suspended in the year 1990 or subsequent thereto when he was no more in this world? The afore-stated factual plea has not been controverted by the respondents in their counter-affidavits. [17]. Besides this, the petitioner has categorically pleaded that along with his application he had also appended the affidavits of three more co-prisoners, namely, Naurang Singh, Ex.MLA, Sher Singh and Bhagat Singh who too had suffered imprisonment along with him in the Central Jail at Lahore. This fact has also gone un- CWP NO. 4695 OF 1995. ::-9-:: controverted by the Union of India in its counter-affidavit. If that is correct and the pension of the petitioner's three co-prisoners has not been suspended, what more is needed to prove that the petitioner has been meted out a totally discriminatory treatment and for arbitrary reasons. [18]. In fact, the uncertainty looming large on the face of the respondent authorities is evident by the fact that a day before passing of the impugned order on 22nd December, 1994, they accepted the petitioner's claim on the strength of the same material and facts. [19]. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 26th March, 1990 and 23rd December, 1994 [Annexures P-4 and P-12] are hereby quashed. The Union of India as well as the State of Punjab are directed to restore the Freedom Fighter's pension in favour of the petitioner from the date it was stopped and to release the arrears within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received, failing which the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum. No costs. December 05, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE