IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15349 of 2009 Date of decision August 23, 2011 Tara Chand ....... Petitioner Versus Union of India and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Veena Ashwani Talwar , Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. K. K. Kahlon, Advocate for the Union. Ms. Kirti Singh, Dag., Haryana. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?Yes K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioner seeks for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider favourably his name for Freedom Fighter's Pension under the Swantatra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 19780. By the impugned order passed by the Union the petitioner's claim has been rejected on four grounds mentioned in the order which is reproduced as follows:- “ i) He has not produced any primary evidence in support of his jail sufferings. ii) He has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his claimed suffering of discharge from the British Army on account of his participation in freedom movement. iii)As per policy, two CPCs are required whereas he submitted one CPC. iv)The State Government has not recommended his case for samman pension but simply forwarded to this Ministry.” 2. The counsel for the petitioner relies on recommendation made by the Government and the certificate issued by the ex-C.M. of State of Haryana and ex M.P., of the State that he was a freedom fighter and he had been imprisoned for 27 days and that he had lost his job consequent on the imprisonment. The copy of the scheme which has been produced shows that the term of imprisonment shall be minimum of six months. His period of imprisonment fell below the minimum period required under the scheme. Learned counsel states that it was no stated to be one of the reasons for rejection of his claim. In the manner, the case is argued, it would mean that the Union is to again consider the case. I am not prepared to direct such a course, since it means stating the obvious of what the scheme which the petitioner relies on clearly shows. If his period of imprisonment was less than six months, there is no way that the Court can mandate an action of what the scheme does not provide for. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 23, 2011 archana