CWP No.16494 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16494 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.11.2011 Sohan Singh s/o Sh. Chhatar Singh r/o Gali No.13, Changra Road, Guru Nanak Mohalla, Patran, District Patiala (Punjab) ... Petitioner Versus Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. Rajiv Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. AG, Punjab. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner challenges the order of the Union rejecting the petitioner's plea for grant of pension under Swatantrata Sanik Samman Scheme for a political prisoner, who claimed to have participated in the freedom movement. The scheme requires that the applicant should have undergone imprisonment at least for a period of 6 months. The ground of rejection of the petitioner's claim has been that the petitioner had previously claimed that he had participated in Bhai Pheru Morcha in 1924-25. In the subsequent application, he has mentioned about his participation in Quit India Movement. The CWP No.16494 of 2011 (O&M) [2] further contradiction found in the impugned order makes a reference to the fact that in the previous application filed by the petitioner in the year 1981, he had given his age as 80 and again when the application was filed in 2001, he has given the very same age of 80. 2. The petitioner's grievance is that the Union has not examined the merits of his claim and the proof adduced for his imprisonment at the Central Jail, Lahore from 20.10.1942 to 19.10.1943 but it has closed his mind by the only fact that an earlier attempt to secure pension for his alleged imprisonment in Multan Central Jail had been established. The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the State has made its recommendation after due verification. In the State's communication to the Union, the Under-Secretary Freedom Fighters has observed that the Government was satisfied through suitable inquiries that sufferings had been undergone by the petitioner genuinely. The State has also taken note of co- prisoners certificates and affidavits of Sh. Bhagat Singh and Sh. Surat Singh, who are themselves recipients of the Central Pension. 3. When the State has certified to the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner, an objective assessment became necessary for the Union but the impugned order does not reflect any such exercise. It cites the earlier application given by the petitioner alleging his imprisonment at Multan Central Jail had been turned down and since the previous statement did not reveal his participation in the Quit India Movement, the petitioner could not be true. The Union has certainly missed the appraisal of the documents on the basis of which, he was making the claim. 4. I would not again make an issue of the fact that the petitioner has stated his age as 80 both in the year 1981 and CWP No.16494 of 2011 (O&M) [3] again in the year 2001. No freedom fighter could be young by the very nature of the event that must have taken place more than 60 years back. There ought to be due allowance for failing memory of old age and the Union could not have rejected the petitioner's plea for pension without properly considering the materials placed before the authorities. 5. I would hold that the recommendation of state on the satisfaction arrived at by examining the records and the inquiries that revealed the petitioner had actually undergone the sufferings were sufficient to hold that he was a freedom fighter entitled to the grant of pension under the scheme. 6. The number of freedom fighters are dwindling by the day and even hearsay evidence for participation in the freedom movement ought to be permitted. It is impossible to look for any evidence more than the affidavits of co-prisoners in a case where the proof of imprisonment from the Jail records were not available. In fact a scheme allows for reasonable flexibility of approach but it is a pity that in spite of several judicial admonitions, the Administration finds every excuse not to make the payments properly. There shall be a mandamus in the manner sought for. The Union shall pass appropriate orders within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the order and make disbursal of all amounts that have stood accumulated. 7. The State shall act as per the relevant rules for release of pension of freedom fighters' pension in the manner that the rules provide for in terms of the findings rendered in this writ petition. 8. The writ petition is allowed. NOVEMBER 30, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE