IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No.47/2008 Decided on:31.8. 2009 ________________________________________________ Union of India. …Appellant. Versus Shankar Dass Verma and another. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Acting Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. For the Respondents: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with, Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate Generals for respondent No.2. ________________________________________________________ R.B. Misra, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 10.5.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 641/2005. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this Letters Patent Appeal are that the respondent submitted application for the release of Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension on 20.10.1995. He filed certificates with the application obtained from the Freedom Fighters, who were in receipt of Pension Payment Order. The respondent was granted the pension by the State Government on 31.1.1996 with effect from 16.11.1995. The case of the respondent was not considered by the appellant herein. He sent the reminder to the appellant on 24.7.1997. The respondent approached this Court by way of CWP No.547 of 1997. The same was decided on 29.4.2003 and the appellant was directed to consider the case of the respondent within a period of three months. The respondent was legitimately expecting that his case will be duly considered in accordance with law. He made a representation to the appellant on 20.6.2003. The case of the respondent was rejected on 10.7.2003. He had assailed this order by way of CWP No. 641/2005. Since the learned Single Judge has not discussed the facts in detail while allowing the writ petition, we ourselves have gone through the pleadings, as noticed above. It is stipulated in the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the scheme’ for brevity sake) that in case the Freedom Fighter is not in a position to produce the official record, it is open to him to produce the certificates to substantiate his case from the Freedom Fighters, who have undergone imprisonment and in whose favour Pension Payment Orders have been issued. The respondent had annexed with the writ petition Annexures PB, PC and PD issued by the renowned Freedom 3 Fighters, namely, Chet Ram, Ganga Ram and Lekh Ram Bhardwaj. The relevant portion of the scheme dealing with the present lis reads thus: “c) Internment or externment i) Order of internment or externment or any other corroboratory documentary evident; ii) Certificate from the prominent freedom fighters who had themselves undergone imprisonment for five year or more if the official records are not available.” The case of the petitioner was duly considered by respondent No.2 and he has been granted the State pension with effect from 16.11.1995. The very fact that the State Government has recognized the respondent as Freedom Fighter was sufficient to entitle him to get the pension from the appellant. The appellant has rejected the case of the respondent without due application of mind. A bare perusal of order dated 20.6.2003 reveals that the case of the respondent has been supported by S/Sh. Narottam Dutt Shastri, Thakur Das Nidar, Lekh Ram Bhardwaj, Jay Ram etc. Thakur in whose favour Pension Payment Orders already stood issued. The appellant has arbitrarily rejected the case of the respondent only on the ground that the certificates do not indicate the period of their imprisonment. The very fact that the PPOs have been issued in favour of Thakur Dass Nidar and Lekh Ram Bhardwaj presupposes that they had undergone the imprisonment as per the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. The petitioner was not required to furnish any document as mentioned in communication dated 20.6.2003. He had done the 4 needful as required under the scheme by furnishing the certificates of the Freedom Fighters, who had been granted the pension and Pension Payment Order stood issued in their favour. The other ground taken by the appellant to deny the pension to the respondent is that the case of the respodnent was not specifically recommended for the grant of Swantantrata Sainik Samman Pension by the State Government. The State Government was not required to specifically recommend the case of the respondent and it was sufficient to convey to the appellant that the respondent has already been considered by the State Government for the release of pension. It is clarified that the State Government has framed its own pension scheme to honour the Freedom Fighters. The respondent has been recognized as Freedom Fighter by the State Government, as noticed above. In view of the observations made hereinabove, it is clear that the respondent was entitled to pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The learned Single Judge has mentioned the judgments on the basis of which he has allowed the writ petition. It was advisable, if the learned Single Judge had discussed the material facts and assigned reasons, while allowing the writ petition. However, we have substituted our own reasons as indicated above in order to mitigate the hardship faced by the respondent. We have gone through the judgments cited by the learned Single Judge in the judgment under challenge. The judgments cited by the learned Single Judge are attracted in the present case. 5 Accordingly, there is no merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. The judgment dated 10.5.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge on the basis of reasons assigned by us hereinabove is upheld. No costs. (R.B. Misra), Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 31.8.2009. *awasthi*