Civil Writ Petition No.252 of 1996 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.252 of 1996 Date of Decision: April 22, 2008 Natha Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.G.C.Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Bhanot, Senior DAG, Punjab, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Yet another person fighting for grant of freedom fighter pension. Denial is on the same ground, which would reflect a pure technical approach to the issue, which has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in more than one case. The petitioner claims himself to be a freedom fighter, who Civil Writ Petition No.252 of 1996 : 2 : had participated in the freedom movement known as “Quit India Movement” during the year 1942-43. According to the petitioner, he had suffered imprisonment in Central Jail, Lahore from 22.10.1942 to 20.10.1943 along with number of other freedom fighters. A few of those, who were incarcerated with him, have been named in the petition and they are Shri Kala Singh son of Shri Pala Singh, Shri Karnail Singh son of Shri Khazan Singh, Shri Bachan Singh son of Shri Bhagat Singh, Shri Lachhman Singh son of Shri Lehna Singh and Shri Kharak Singh son of Shri Chain Singh. After giving reference to the fact that the Government had framed a scheme initially known as Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme for award of pension to freedom fighters, the petitioner has disclosed that he had applied for grant of such pension on 19.11.1981. The petitioner has given the history of this Scheme and the changes which the scheme has undergone ever since the date of its inception. It has also been noticed in number of other cases decided by this court that this scheme which was introduced on the occasion of 25th Anniversary of Independence of the country with effect from 15.8.1972. This scheme was subsequently re-named as `Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme' in the year 1980. Prior to this, a note was also circulated to all the State Governments to clarify the said scheme and to remove ambiguities therein. As can be noticed, the scheme is meant for grant of pension to all deserving cases of freedom fighters. This pension is normally for the life time of the recipients and a meager sum of Rs.200/- was allowed as a pension. The family of the freedom fighter was also defined to include mother, father, widow, widower and un-married daughters. The quantum of pension was increased Civil Writ Petition No.252 of 1996 : 3 : from Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- and the annual ceiling of Rs.5,000/- per annum or less for being eligible for pension was removed by providing that there would not be any bar of income for freedom fighter to apply for pension if he otherwise fulfilled the conditions of eligibility. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the notification dated 31.1.1983 as Annexure P-1. It is mentioned that the scheme was relaxed to provide that the Government would accept the certificates of the co-prisonership furnished by any two renowned freedom fighters, who themselves have undergone imprisonment for not less than one year in connection with the freedom struggle. The relevant para of the notification in this regard is as under:- “In respect of claim of jail sufferings, the Govt. will now accept certificates of Co-prisonership from any two renowned freedom fighters, who themselves had undergone imprisonment for not less than one year in connection with the freedom struggle and are recipients of Tamra-Patras and pension from the Central Revenues. Under the existing provision or scheme, such co- prisoners certificates were acceptable only when they had been issued by sitting of former legistrators.” The frustration which has set in with the petitioner would be reflected from the averment in the petition, wherein he avers that he is now at the fag-end of his life and had participated in the Quit India Movement and that he had applied for freedom fighter pension in terms of the scheme. Relying upon the evidence which could be furnished in support of the application, the petitioner had submitted Civil Writ Petition No.252 of 1996 : 4 : co-prisoner certificates from Shri Gopal Singh Qaumi and Shri Kesar Singh in support of his jail sufferings as the official record pertaining to his jail period could not be obtained despite best efforts. The application of the petitioner was sent to Deputy Commissioner, Patiala for the purpose of verification of the jail sufferings etc. The grievance of the petitioner is that he sat over the papers ever since 5.11.1993. The petitioner would refer to the observations made by Division Bench of this court saying that such claims were required to be decided earliest and the Government authorities could be expected to be sensitive in such like matters. The petitioner complains that freedom fighters similarly situated have been granted pension under the Punjab Scheme and has named Lachhman Singh son of Lehna Singh in this regard. According to the petitioner, said Lachhman Singh has also based his claim on a certificate given by co-prisoner Shri Gopal Singh and Shri Kesar Singh in support of his jail sufferings. He would similarly give an example of case of Kharak Singh, who has also been awarded pension on the basis of a certificate submitted by co-prisoners Shri Kala Singh and Shri Gopal Singh. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was admitted on 16.7.1996. The reply has been filed on behalf of the State. The preliminary objection raised would reflect the stand of the respondent-State, which is to the effect that petitioner has based his claim on co-prisoners certificates, which are not acceptable by the Government of India. The respondents would refer to letter, Annexure R-1 issued by the Union of India to Gopal Singh Qaumi to point out that they had issued certificates in large number of cases. It Civil Writ Petition No.252 of 1996 : 5 : is further stated in this communication that it would be impossible to have personal knowledge of as many as 200 prisoners that too after fifty years. Annexure R-2 is a letter issued by the Government to Darshan Singh, whereby it is stated that certificate issued by Kesar Singh is not considered eligible as he has been issuing co-prisoner certificate indiscriminately. It is, thus, stated by the respondents that Deputy Commissioner, Patiala had forwarded his verification report to the State Government on 20.3.1996 and he has not recommended the case of the petitioner. In short, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected mainly on the ground that the co-prisoner certificate furnished by the petitioner in support of his claim is by those persons, who have not been held entitled to issue this certificate. During the course of hearing, the State counsel has placed on record additional affidavit and some documents to the effect that Gopal Singh Qaumi and Kesar Singh have specifically been debarred for issuing certificates and accordingly this has been pressed as a reason to deny grant of pension to the petitioner. A letter dated 17.7.1997 addressed to all Deputy Commissioners is annexed as R-4. Through this letter, it is intimated that the Government of India has declared various freedom fighters as ineligible for issuing co-prisoner certificates and names of Gopal Singh Quami and Kesar Singh are included therein. The State counsel could not answer when asked if the petitioner was sent any intimation to this effect that the certificate given by these freedom fighters in support of his claim is by those persons, who have now been held ineligible to issue such certificates. The counsel also could not explain as to how the petitioner was to know that a particular Civil Writ Petition No.252 of 1996 : 6 : freedom fighter has been held ineligible to give this certificate. The petitioner had applied for pension in the year 1981. Gopal Singh Qaumi and Kesar Singh were not ineligible to issue co-prisoner certificates. If they have subsequently been held ineligible to issuance of the certificates, then the certificates issued when they were eligible to do so cannot be termed as invalid. Any certificate issued by such persons subsequent to the date they were held ineligible may not be accepted but the certificates issued by them when they were eligible cannot discarded in the manner it is being done in this case. Such certificate issued prior to they being legally ineligible would not suffer from any infirmity. Even the petitioner was not made aware if the certificate issued by these persons would not be valid. It could not have been as on the dates these certificates were valid. How was he to know that the evidence in support of his claim would subsequently be termed as invalid. It was valid when he had submitted his claim. The principles of natural justice, as such, have clearly been violated. He was also not given chance to provide another proof in support of his claim. Even otherwise, these certificates were perfectly valid when issued in favour of the petitioner and cannot be termed as invalid due to some subsequent order, which if allowed to have sway would then have a retrospective operation. These communications/orders would, at the most, operate from the date of issuing and as such would not affect the case of the petitioner in any manner. I am accordingly of the view that the case of the petitioner has not been validly considered. The order of rejection is based on a consideration which is neither fair nor reasonable. Since the co-prisoner certificate is the valid evidence, Civil Writ Petition No.252 of 1996 : 7 : which can be furnished in support of the claim and was submitted in support of the case with the application, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of grant of this pension on the ground that these certificates are not valid or are issued by the person, who is subsequently held ineligible. Normally, the case of the petitioner should have been sent back to the respondents for re-consideration. This, if done, would further delay the disposal of the case and grant of a meager sum to the petitioner, who is claiming the same more as a Sanman rather than pension. It is a different matter that the respondents are treating this to be a case of pension and have chosen to say so in their preliminary objection that this is token of honour and this cannot be claimed as a matter of statutory right. This honour, in my view, is due to the petitioner. He has submitted valid evidence in support of his claim. If this evidence has subsequently held to be ineligible, the petitioner cannot be put to prejudice on that count. This evidence was very much valid on the date the petitioner has furnished the same. Number of other persons are receiving pension on the support of evidence given by these very freedom fighters. The credential of these persons as freedom fighters is not doubted. Doubt arises from their giving certificates in large number which is not valid ground to back out from the conditions contained in the scheme. The denial of the pension to the petitioner is, thus, unfair and illegal and cannot be sustained. The petitioner appears to have suffered because of delay on the part of respondents to decide his case. If the Government had decided his case promptly, then he would not have suffered the effect of letters holding some freedom fighters ineligible to issue Civil Writ Petition No.252 of 1996 : 8 : these certificates. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to the grant Sainik Sanman Pension with effect from the date he had applied in terms of the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari and Ors. Vs. Union of India, JT 1993(3) SC 342. The petitioner is held entitled to the arrears along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date it is due to the him. Let the needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. April 22, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE