CWP No.15940 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.15940 of 2009 Date of Decision: 13.10.2010 **** Gurnam Singh ... Petitioner VS. Union of India & Ors. …Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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. Rajiv Anand, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Advocate for respondents No.1&2 Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner has been granted the “Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension” by the State of Punjab after having found in the course of enquiry that the petitioner remained imprisoned in the Central Jail at Lahore (Pakistan) which fact has been duly corroborated by the affidavits of his co-prisoners, namely, Shri Kesar Singh s/o Sh. Kala Singh and Shri Gopala Singh Quami s/o Shri Karora Singh both residents of District Patiala, brought on record by the petitioner. CWP No.15940 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). The petitioner’s case was duly forwarded to the Government of India for the grant of Central Pension, however, after consideration, the Union of India vide its letter dated 11.08.2000 (Annexure P6) raised an objection that the dates of alleged ‘imprisonment’ referred to by the petitioner in his initial application dated 19.11.1981 and in the subsequent affidavit dated 22.07.1992 were different. While the petitioner in the application dated 19.11.1981 had said that he remained in jail from 20.10.1942 to 19.10.1943, as per his affidavit dated 22.07.1992, the period of imprisonment was from 15.08.1942 to 15.08.1943. According to the Union of India, the above-stated version of the petitioner was ‘contradictory’. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. (3). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit, reiterating the afore-mentioned stand. (4). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. (5). The fact that the petitioner was lodged in the Central Jail, Lahore (Pakistan) for some period is not seriously disputed. This fact has been duly ‘verified CWP No.15940 of 2009.doc - 3 – and confirmed’ in a fact-finding enquiry got conducted by the State of Punjab also. As regards the period of suffering mentioned by the petitioner, it cannot be termed as ‘contradictory’ even though it does vary. In such like situation and owing to the very object of the Pension Scheme, the Union of India had more than one recourse available including to resort to its Diplomatic channels and ascertain the correct period of the petitioner’s imprisonment from the Central Jail, Lahore and/or rely upon the secondary evidence produced by the petitioner which too is admissible under the Scheme. Pertinently, the Central Government though has not chosen its own fact-finding mechanism yet for no justifiable reason, it has refused to accept the fact- finding enquiry got conducted by the State Govenrment. The petitioner was jailed from August, 1942 to August 1943 or from October, 1942 to October, 1943 alone is not the material issue as what is to be seen is that he was imprisoned for his participation in the ‘Freedom Movement’. The real object of the Pension Scheme is to honour the Freedom Fighters and not to embarrass them by raising hyper-technicalities. CWP No.15940 of 2009.doc - 4 – (6). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the Government of India is directed to re- consider the petitioner’s claim, however, with liberty to hold another fact-finding enquiry at its own level and/or to ascertain the petitioner’s claim through Diplomatic channels within a period of four months failing which it shall be imperative upon the Union of India to accept the fact-finding enquiry report already submitted by the State of Punjab and release the consequential pension to the petitioner from the due date within a period of two months thereafter. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 13.10.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE