Civil Writ Petition No.18056 of 1998 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18056 of 1998 DATE OF DECISION: May 15 , 2008 Jagat Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Union of India & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.R.C.Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Rathee, Addl.C.G.S.C., for respondent No.1. Mr.N.S.Pawar, Addl.Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Jagat Singh, Ex-Serviceman and recipient of a `Tamar Patra' has filed this petition claiming freedom fighter pension, now known as `Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension'. The petitioner having failed in his attempt to convince the respondent-Union of India for his right to claim this pension, has now approached this court. Civil Writ Petition No.18056 of 1998 : 2 : The petitioner, while serving in the Army, showed exemplary courage to take part in the freedom struggle of the country while still serving the foreign ruler. One may have to remind oneself that the course which the petitioner chose was rather difficult one and certainly not an easy. He still scarified his liberty and the entire livelihood for the sake of Nation. In turn, he earned a sentence of nine months rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner was awarded this sentence for taking part for organizing Army men against the British rule while serving in 504 India Supply Government activities, now known as Army Service Corps. The petitioner claims that he along with one L/NK Abdul Gafoor and Hawaldar Atma Ram were tried by Court Martial and sentenced to suffer the imprisonment afore-mentioned. The petitioner has placed on record a certificate issued by Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala on 28.12.1990 certifying that petitioner Jagat Singh son of Bhadur Singh, resident of village Madhe Ke, Police Station Nihal Singh Wala, District Ferozepur was admitted in the Central Jail, Ambala on 4.3.1946 under sentence by Court Martial. It is also disclosed that he was sentenced to nine months by Officer Commanding Supply and MOB Centre and this entry is at Sr.No.4014. The petitioner was admitted to Central Jail, Ambala on 4.3.1946 and then was transferred to Lahore Central Jail, Lahore (now in Pakistan) on 13.3.1946. It is on this basis that the petitioner has applied for grant of pension when he learnt that the Scheme in this regard has been formulated in the year 1972 by the name of `Freedom Fighter Pension' which has subsequently been re-named as Swatantrata Sanman Pension in the year 1980. When this Civil Writ Petition No.18056 of 1998 : 3 : freedom fighter pension was introduced in the year 1972 on the eve of 25th year of independence of the country, the Government had conferred the petitioner with `TAMAR PATRA'. Copy of the Tamar Patra has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2 and reads as under:- “ON THE OCCASION OF 25TH YEAR OF INDEPENDENCE, To commemorate the struggle of attainment of Freedom, Prime Minister Mrs.Indira Gandhi has conferred the Honour of `Tamar Patra' on behalf of the Nation to Mr.Jagat Singh.” The grateful Nation has honoured the petitioner with `Tamar Patra` which is presented by none other than the then Prime Minister of this country Mrs.Indira Gandhi and this is to commemorate the struggle of a freedom, yet Babus are advancing one reason after another to deny a meagerly sum of Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- to the petitioner, which he has asked for as a `Sanman' Pension. The Scheme, which was introduced in the year 1972 and came to be known as Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension w.e.f. 6.8.1980, had undergone various changes from time to time. This court had the occasion to deal with this Scheme while deciding number of cases filed by freedom fighters, i.e., C.W.P.Nos.252 of 1996, 3668 of 1997, 16570 of 2001, 2766 of 2004 and 10079 of 2001, who were denied pension. The entire reference to the Scheme and how the same has been interpreted by this court and even the Apex Court has been noticed in these judgments. It would be futile to again refer to the Scheme in detail and brief reference to the relevant Civil Writ Petition No.18056 of 1998 : 4 : part of the Scheme relating to Ex-Army personnel revolting against British would suffice. The case of the petitioner is covered by a decision of this court in respect of Sawaran Singh (petitioner in CWP No.2766 of 2004), who had revolted against British regime and was sentenced to transportation for life and had undergone a sentence of nearly 7 years before he was released. Sawaran Singh, like petitioner, was awarded Tamar Patra and commendation for his remarkable contribution in the freedom struggle. He also, like the petitioner, was denied pension but has been so allowed by this court through order dated March 13,2008. Government of India has formulated a scheme for those Ex-Army personnel who revolted against the British regime and had to suffer for atleast six months or more on account of participation in mutiny etc. This scheme is formulated on 22.7.1996. The meeting of the joint committee of the freedom fighters and officials held on 13.11.1997 was annexed with writ petition filed by Sarwan Singh (supra), which is as under:- “Ex-Army Personnel covered by the special pension scheme should be brought under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme as per the recommendation made in the last Joint Committee Meeting.” The petitioner submitted his application for grant of pension within the stipulated period. The same was received by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 15.4.1981. A copy of this application was also addressed to Chief Secretary, Punjab Government for taking necessary action. Pursuant to this, the Government of Punjab asked the petitioner to appear before the Deputy Secretary (Freedom Fighter), Punjab on 27.6.1983 for verification of his case along with Civil Writ Petition No.18056 of 1998 : 5 : documentary evidence in support of his plea of he being a political sufferer. After due verification, the Government of Punjab issued an identity card to the petitioner as a freedom fighter. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of this identity card as Annexure P-6. Instead of recognising this to be sufficient proof and relevant material to grant pension to the petitioner, the Government of India instead again required the petitioner to produce the evidence from the jail record showing that he had undergone the imprisonment and that the jail sentence was in connection with freedom struggle. This was through a communication dated 22.11.1990, annexed with the petition as Annexure P-7. Good nine years are, thus, taken by the Government of India to consider the claim of the person, who is asking for a sum of Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- as a Sanman Pension. The petitioner responded with letter dated 7.1.1991 giving facts in detail showing that he had been punished for participating in freedom struggle. The petitioner sent a reminder to the Secretary, Home Affairs when he did not hear anything for four years through his letter dated 27.11.1995. The petitioner also approached the Central Government through Punjab Legal Services Authority in the year 1998, which wrote to the Secretary, Government of Indian to expedite the decision to avoid unnecessary litigation as the petitioner was wanting to file writ petition through the Legal Services Authority. It is then that the present writ petition was filed on 25.11.1990. The writ petition was admitted on 26.11.1998 giving liberty to the petitioner to move for expeditious hearing after completion of service. The writ petition thereafter has remained pending. Directions for early hearing is also issued in the year 2001 Civil Writ Petition No.18056 of 1998 : 6 : and were repeated in the year 2003, but the petition still could not be heard obviously because of chocking pendency. The petitioner repeated his prayer for early hearing in the year 2008 and that is how this petition has now been taken up for hearing today and is being decided. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by both State of Punjab as well as the Union of India. The respondents are consistent in their stand in repeating those preliminary objections which they would raise in all such cases. Punjab Government in its reply states that it is a honour which is to be conferred and cannot be claimed as a statutory right. It is not the case that a person would not be entitled to approach the court when an honour is wrongly denied. However, during the course of arguments, the Punjab Government did not seriously contest the claim raised by the petitioner. In fact, it may appear beyond comprehension as to how the State Government or the Central Government would be able to justify their action in denying this pension to the petitioner. A person, who is given Tamar Patra in recognition for his participation in the freedom struggle by a Prime Minister of this country is still being asked to show that he is a freedom fighter. What for and why this Tamar Patra was given to him?. Was it given easily without verification. If not so, then how many times the bureaucracy of the Government would ask a person to submit evidence in support of his claim. The averment made in para 3 of the petition has not been denied either by the State of Punjab or by the Union of India. The State Government has adopted an evasive attitude by stating that pension is granted by Government of India and the State Civil Writ Petition No.18056 of 1998 : 7 : Government grants such pension to those who are getting pension from Government of India. It is, thus, pleaded that the petitioner would be granted pension as and when he is allowed pension by the Government of India. The Union of India otherwise has taken a stand, which is mind boggling . It is not disputed that the petitioner was granted Tamra Patra in recognition of his sacrifice to the freedom movement. Still, the person filing the reply would have audacity to say that the award of Tamra Patra does not ipso-facto mean that the individual is recognized as a freedom fighter or that he has become entitled to the Swatantrata Sainik Sanman pension. What a justification? It just cannot be accepted by any norms. The averment that pension can only be granted to the person when he has undergone six months suffering during the freedom movement is a plea which apparently is raised without going through the contents of the Scheme. As per the scheme, a person, who has lost his job in Central or State Government for participation in the National Movement is also held eligible for grant of pension. Sentence of dismissal from service is a statutory mandate in respect of Army man awarded sentence of more than three months, which he is required to undergo in civil prison. Though the person filing the reply was totally insensitive to the scheme and the purpose behind it, but the counsel representing Union of India acquitted himself with credit by fairly stating that the stand as being canvassed would not appear justified. Whether the petitioner was court martialed for his participation in freedom struggle was bound to be ascertained while recognising his contribution to the freedom movement of the country. Once he was awarded Tamra Civil Writ Petition No.18056 of 1998 : 8 : Patra, it obviously means that this was after satisfying that the petitioner had so suffered because of his participation in the freedom struggle. In this background, to say that it is not clear whether court martial was due to participation in freedom struggle or due to indiscipline is bound to be rejected. To say the least, it would be a dishonour to the Prime Minister of this Country when a State employee is permitted to take this stand which stood recognised by award of Tamar Patra by the then Prime Minister. The reference made by the person filing the reply to catch to some straw or the other by saying that the character of the petitioner was not assessed in his discharge certificate issued to the petitioner, whereas those discharged on account of working against the then regime were discharged with bad character assessment, is a stand which is too puerile and deserves outright rejection. The person filing the reply needs to inform himself that the petitioner was tried by a Court Martial and dismissed from service. Assessment of character in the discharge certificate may not have been made in this background. To deny pension to the petitioner on this basis is totally unjustified and would amount to adding insult to his injuries. He is recognised freedom fighter by the Government itself. The stand as projected by the Union of India, as such, cannot be accepted and deserves to be rejected. The petitioner has made out a clear case for grant of pension. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner will get pension from the date he had applied for the same, i.e. 15.4.1981. The Government has taken so many years to consider the claim of the petitioner and still was in the process of considering when he filed the present writ petition. This cannot but be termed as Civil Writ Petition No.18056 of 1998 : 9 : a total casual and careless approach for which the petitioner would deserve to be compensated. The petitioner would get his arrears with 9% interest per annum from the date it is due till the date of payment. The Union of India would do good now to release the arrears of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of the order. In case the arrears are not so released within the time stipulated, then the petitioner would have interest @ 12% per annum from date it is due till the date of payment. May 15, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE