CWP no. 11845 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP no. 11845 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 01-11-2011 Shivtar Kaur ....Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Ms. Alka Chatrath Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Anjali Kukkar, Advocate for UOI-respondents MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ specially in the nature of Certiorari to quash order dated 11.12.2009 vide which the claim of the petitioner for grant of arrears of pension of revised Sainik Samman Pension Scheme as revised by Government from time to time as per Annexures P-8 to P-17 placed on record has been rejected. It has been stated in the impugned order that the benefit of the revised pension of Sainik Samman Pension Scheme cannot be made admissible to the petitioner's husband because her husband was only entitled to grant of special pension for the service as 'Army personnel who revolted against British rule'. Husband of the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of CWP no. 2766 of 2004 which was dealt alongwith another writ petition of the like nature and while disposing of the case of the petitioner's husband, this Court has observed as follows:- “The case of Sawaran Singh, petitioner in Civil CWP no. 11845 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Writ Petition No.2766 of 2004, as already noticed, is slightly different. The petitioner in this case has made a prayer for grant of special pension to him, being an Ex.Army person, who had revolted against the British authorities. The grant of this pension, apparently is also regulated by the same scheme i.e. Freedom Fighter/Sainik Samman Pension. This can be seen from Annexure P-7, which is an extract of the minutes of the Joint Committee of the Freedom Fighters and officials held on November 13, 1997. It would be advantageous to reproduce the minutes of this meeting, which are 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. Further, the name of 3/12 Punjab Regiment may be changed as Royal Frontier Force and 16-20 persons whose details could not be verified by Ministry of Defence may be granted pension on the basis of certificates given by the Special Pensioners.” In fact, this is the same minutes and a decision which has been heavily relied by the petitioner to say that the name of 3/12 Punjab Regiment was directed to be changed as Royal Frontier Force with the further recommendation that 16 to 20 persons whose details could not be verified may be granted pension on the basis of a certificate given by the special pensioners. According to the petitioner, this change is not being CWP no. 11845 of 2010 (O&M) 3 noticed and as such, his claim has been rejected on a totally inappropriate ground that the Ministry of Defence has not been able to furnish any verification report. It would have been a different matter if, on verification, the claim of the petitioner would have been found not made out. Such an indifferent attitude towards a person who sacrificed his life for the sake of nation? One may need to appreciate that for a trained soldier it is very difficult to resort to a mutiny against a alien ruler. Instead of enjoying the comforts of service, the petitioner chose a difficult path for which he faced a Court martial and a sentence for transportation of life. He had undergone an imprisonment of almost seven years and in return, he is just praying for a sum of Rs.200/-/ 300/- as a Samman being a Freedom Fighter Pension. Beni Ram, Under Secretary to the Government of India, who has expressed his regrets and inability to admit the claim of the petitioner can not realise the agony, torture and suffering the petitioner would have undergone for the cause of getting freedom for this Nation. He also needs to go through the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as reproduced above, to understand the nature and purpose of the Scheme as well as the object and the standard of proof required in such cases. He obviously has not taken any care to notice the decision taken in the Joint Committee meeting on 13.11.1997, whereby the claim of 16 to 20 persons, which could not be verified by the Ministry of Defence were to be granted pension on the basis of the CWP no. 11845 of 2010 (O&M) 4 certificates given by the Special Pensioner. If he had taken a bit of a care, then he would have taken into consideration the affidavit given by Bhagwant Singh, Freedom Fighter, who had been a coprisoner of the petitioner at Selular Jail, Andeman from October 1940 to 10.2.1942. As per this certificate, Bhagwant Singh was also the co-prisoner of the petitioner at Indore Jail from 23.5.1942 to September 1946. Bhagwant Singh is a recipient of a pension from the Central Government as well as from the Punjab Government. How could this evidence be ignored except for totally indifferent attitude of those dealing with the cases. I am of the considered view that this evidence in the light of decision of the Joint Committee referred to above would be sufficient enough to admit the claim of the petitioner as a Freedom Fighter and for grant of pension to him under the Scheme as formulated. There is no other reason for which the petitioner has been declined this Samman. In my view, he deserves it. He can not be deprived from this Samman any more on any of the consideration that has weighed with the authorities so far. The impugned order dated 5.1.2004, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, as such, can not be sustained and the same is setaside. Direction is hereby issued for grant of Sainik Samman Pension due to the petitioner. Further direction is to the effect that the pension be released to the petitioner from the date he had moved application in this regard and the arrears be released to him alongwith 9% interest from the date it is due to the date CWP no. 11845 of 2010 (O&M) 5 of payment. The above-noted three writ petitions are accordingly allowed in the terms as noted. The respondents are directed to calculate and release the pension to the respective petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. I am refraining from awarding exemplary costs in these cases since I have directed release of pension with interest.” Subsequent thereto since the benefit of Sainik Samman Pension Scheme was not being made available to the husband of the petitioner, a contempt petition was preferred in which the respondents categorically stated that the order of the writ Court stood complied with and that a decision has been taken to grant Sainik Samman Pension Scheme to the petitioner's husband vide order dated 4.12.2009 subject to his completing other formalities which are required. The petitioner contends that subsequent to the decision dated 4.12.2009 the benefits have been made available to her as per Sainik Samman Pension Scheme but the benefit of revision which took place from time to time in accordance with Annexures P-8 to P-17 have not been granted to her. Strangely enough the respondents have reverted back to the reason which was originally a pretext for denying the benefit of this Sainik Samman Pension Scheme to the petitioner. Once this Court has held that the petitioner's husband is entitled to the benefit of the Sainik Samman Pension Scheme and pursuant thereto when a decision has already been taken by the respondents there is no occasion for them to deny the revised benefits of the scheme by saying that the petitioner's husband being an ex CWP no. 11845 of 2010 (O&M) 6 army personnel who revolted against British rule was merely entitled to special pension. This amounts to an attempt to completely defeat the orders of this Court which has held the petitioner's husband entitled to the benefits of the pension scheme. It not only reveals the shortsightedness of the officials dealing with the case in hand but also reveals their deep insensitivity to the issue which may even shame the colonial masters. It is also to be noticed that while disposing of the writ petition filed by the husband of the petitioner it was categorically held that this Court is restraining its hands to impose costs. Apparently this benevolent attitude of this Court has not found appreciation with the respondents, moreso, when on the previous dates of hearing and during the course of arguments this Court made it clear that there was no justification in the defence taken up by the respondents. Despite this, the respondents have chosen to adopt a mode of stubborn denial to persist with an unjustified stand which has the effect of not only defeating the claim of the petitioner but also has the effect of negating the earlier judgment of this Court. The Court therefore with deep anguish proceeds to observe that once this Court in an earlier decision has held the petitioner entitled to the benefits of Sainik Samman Pension Scheme which benefit have actually been granted to her by virtue of the decision dated 4.12.2009, the grant of the revised benefits of the scheme cannot be withheld from her. Such a denial is completely arbitrary and unjustified. The writ petition, is therefore, allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to the revised benefits of the scheme in terms of Annexure P-8 to P-17 which benefits shall be CWP no. 11845 of 2010 (O&M) 7 computed and paid to her positively within a period of three months alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period from the date of application till the date of its realisation. The respondents shall also pay costs of Rs. 2 lakhs to the petitioner which shall be recovered from the pocket of the officers who have stubbornly insisted on the denial of the benefit to the petitioner on the ground which already stood negated by this Court. A report regarding recovery of costs from the erring officials be also submitted to this Court separately. November 1, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge