Regular Second Appeal No. 1731 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1731 of 1987 Date of decision: 08.01.2010 Partap Singh Sharma ...appellant Versus Union of India and others ...respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: None. RANJIT SINGH J. No one appears when Regular Second Appeal is taken up for hearing. The appellant, Partap Singh, has filed a civil suit on 18.05.1984 against Union of India and the State of Punjab seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to grant of freedom fighter pension from August, 1972. As per the averment made in the suit, the appellant had statedly served in the Indian National Army from 1942 to 1945 as a Sepoy. He claims to have worked in Azad School of Indian National Army at Penang from where he was taken as prisoner when it came under the control of British. It is accordingly stated that he was imprisoned in Bidda Dairy Camp prison, Singapore, where he remained for nearly 8 months. On this basis, he made a claim for grant of freedom fighter pension. Prior to filing the suit, he served a notice under Section 80 of the CPC and when despite that no pension was sanctioned, he filed a suit. Regular Second Appeal No. 1731 of 1987 2 The suit was contested by the defendants. It is stated that case of the appellant was of doubtful category as he had made a contradictory claims at different times and have also adduced evidence, which is of a contradictory nature. It is disclosed that through letter dated 31.7.1982, the Home Ministry had asked the appellant to furnish clarifications about his claim and circumstances of his detention. The appellant, however, did not care to reply. Instead of taking action, he filed the present suit. The civil Court declined the prayer of the appellant on the ground that the grant of freedom fighter pension is a token of honour and therefore held that the scheme was gratuitous in nature and did not confer any civil right to the appellant. It was also held that the appellant was asked to explain as to how he was detained in Bidda Dairy Camp while he was posted at Azad School, Penang. He did not reply to this query. At the same time it is observed that the pension case of the appellant had not been disposed of finally and as such the suit was premature. On the basis of evidence produced, the Court otherwise could not come to any conclusive finding whether the appellant was a freedom fighter. The matter was, therefore, left to be decided by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The suit, however, was dismissed but still the copy of the judgment was sent to Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs with the request that the case of the appellant/freedom fighter be considered on merit. The appellant was also asked to submit the reply to the queries raised. This order passed by civil Court was taken in appeal. The appellate Court, however, found that oral and documentary Regular Second Appeal No. 1731 of 1987 3 evidence brought on record had rightly been considered and the finding of the trial Court that it was of a doubtful nature etc. was upheld. Even the finding that the suit was premature was affirmed as the matter was statedly still under consideration. The contradictory stand of the appellant was also taken note of by the appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed finding that there was no merit therein. No one has appeared to make submission in this case. I have considered the judgment in appeal. Though the finding of the trial Court that the scheme of freedom fighter pension is an honour and does not create a civil right may not be sustained in view of number of judgments passed by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It may be an honour but if a person is able to establish his status as a freedom fighter then this honour or pension, may be a Samman pension, cannot be denied. It may not thus be possible to hold that no civil rights are involved. Since the matter has been referred to the Government for considering the case of the appellant, no interference otherwise may be called for. In this background, no substantial question of law may arise. No question has been formulated, which can be considered by this Court in Regular Second Appeal. It would be seen that basically the appellant has made this claim on the basis of fact that he had remained in custody, which would entitle him to freedom fighters pension now known as Sainik Samman Pension. Thus, the factual issues are required to be considered and adjudicated. The Court has referred the matter to the Union of India for processing the case of the appellant. It is not clear as to what subsequently has happened on this issue. The Regular Second Appeal No. 1731 of 1987 4 appellant if aggrieved against any action of the Government would be at liberty to agitate the same before an appropriate forum. The present Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. January 08, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE