IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 337 of 2007-B Reserved on: 02.11.2011 Decided on: 16.12.2011 Sh. Rikhi Ram, s/o Sh. Labha Ram, r/o Village Bala, Post Office Dahad, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. …Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, New Delhi 2. The State of H.P. through the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171 002 …Respondents. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Ms. Vandana Kuthiala and Mr. Vijay Bhatia, Advocates, for the petitioner. For the respondents: Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate, vice Ms. Shilpa Sood, Central Government Standing Counsel, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No. 2. 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- Deepak Gupta, J. The petitioner by means of this petition has prayed that he had taken part in Praja Mandal Movement in the State of Bilaspur and had remained underground for two years, so he be declared to be a Freedom Fighter and held entitled to receive pension under the Swantantarta Sainani Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Scheme) and the Himachal Pradesh Swatantrata Sainani Samman Yojna, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the State Scheme). 2. The petitioner had applied for grant of pension under the State Scheme on 03.04.1995. This prayer was rejected by the State Government on 14.07.1999 on the ground that there was nothing on record to prove that the petitioner had undergone imprisonment for two months. Thereafter, the petitioner sent another communication on 31.07.1999 stating that no official orders were available, but he had placed on record certificates issued by Shri Narottam Dutt Shastri and others to prove that he was actually a Freedom Fighter and had undergone imprisonment for more than two months. This request was again rejected on 19th August, 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner sent another application on 03.12.2003, which was also rejected on same ground on 9th December, 2003. The petitioner kept on representing and these prayers have been rejected. 3. It would be pertinent to mention that Shri Narottam Dutt Shastri, an Ex MLA / Vice President of Bilaspur State Praja Mandal, issued a certificate to the effect that Rikhi Ram had -: 3 :- remained underground since 1946 to 1948. Shri Tulsi Ram Mehta, another Freedom Fighter belonging to Rajgarh area of District Sirmaur, had also issued a certificate and he, in his certificate, mentioned that Shri Rikhi Ram had visited Sirmaur State and worked underground for more than two years from 1946 to 1948. Another certificate in this behalf was issued by Shri Devi Ram, another Freedom Fighter and Shri Mansa Ram, who is also a Freedom Fighter. 4. The State has rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner in his report has observed that there is no sufficient proof and records of the sufferings suffered by the petitioner and has also taken the stand that the certificates given by two prominent Freedom Fighters, Shri Narottam Dutt Shastri and Shri Daulat Ram Sankhyan are contradictory and do not support the contention of the petitioner. 5. The most important issue is how to prove the claim of imprisonment/detention etc. In the present case, we are concerned with internment or externment. Clause 9(c) of the policy, which is relevant for our purpose, reads as follows: “9............. (a).............. (b)............. (c) INTERNMENT OR EXTERNMENT (i) Order of internment or externment or any other corroboratory documentary evidence. (ii) Certificates from prominent freedom fighters who had themselves undergone imprisonment for two years or more if the official records are not available.(Annexure II in the application).” -: 4 :- 6. Admittedly, in this case, certificates have been given by prominent Freedom Fighters, who themselves had undergone imprisonments for more than six months. The State does not deny that the persons who issued the certificates had undergone imprisonment for more that the requisite period. The only contention is that the statements of the Freedom Fighters were contradictory. But, other than stating this, no material has been placed on record to show how the certificates are contradictory. 7. It would be pertinent to mention that the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the Freedom Fighters, who certified the certificates of the petitioner, themselves had been declared Freedom Fighters on the basis of certificates issued by others and this was the only ground to reject the claim of the petitioner. 8. As observed above, the certificates issued in favour of the petitioner are by the Freedom Fighters who have been recognized by the State of Himachal Pradesh and who were getting pension and who admittedly had undergone imprisonment for six months or more. Therefore, as per the State Scheme, the petitioner was entitled to grant of pension. 9. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner is held entitled to grant of pension from the State. However, as far as the claim for pension against the Union of India is concerned, it is apparent that till date, the petitioner has not even applied to the Union of India for grant of pension. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to this relief. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner -: 5 :- to approach the Union of India for grant of pension under the Central Scheme. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as to whether the petitioner is entitled to pension under the Central Scheme or not and his case may be considered on its own merits. 10. With these observations, the writ petition is partly allowed and the petitioner is entitled to be declared as Freedom Fighter and for grant of pension under the State Scheme. The petitioner is also held entitled to arrears of pension w.e.f. 1st March, 2004, i.e. three years prior to filing of the petition alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the said date till the amount is paid to the petitioner. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge December 16, 2011 (rajni)