Research › Browse › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 101 (HP)

KALA RAM v. UNION OF INDIA

1995-12-18

R.L.KHURANA, S.N.PHUKAN

body1995
JUDGMENT R. L. Khurana, J —By virtue of the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is a-resident of earstwhile princely State of Bilaspur and presently District Bilaspur, has approached this Court seeking Freedom Fighters Pension under the Swatantarta Saiaik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme of 1980). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case may be stated thus. The petitioner participated in the Praja Mandal Movement and was also an active worker of the said movement during 1946-47. Under the verbal orders of the then Ruler of State of Bilaspur, the petitioner was externed from the State on account of his being an active member of the Praja Mandal Movement. He remained externed for a period of about two years. The petitioner on 28-7-1981 applied to the respondents for the grant of pension under the Scheme of 1980, The application was supported by an affidavit and some documents. Such application was duly received in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The petitioner on 8-9-1986 was called upon to appear before the Sub-Committee constituted for the purpose, at Bilaspur and to produce documents with regard to his sufferings The necessary documents were submitted by the petitioner. Such documents included the certificates of Shri Kartar Singh, Ex. Dy, S. P. of the earstwhile State of Bilaspur, and that of two other freedom fighters S/Shri Khushi Mohammad and Khurshid Ahmad. The case of the petitioner for the grant of Freedom Fighters Pension was also recommended by the State Government. Inspite of reminders, the necessary pension has not been granted to the petitioner till dater 3. The respondents vide their reply affidavit have admitted that the application of the petitioner was received aud was being dealt with as File No 117/B/206/8I. The said file was not traceable Therefore, the petitioner was requested on 26-5-1995 (during the pendency of the present writ petition) to supply a copy of the original application, which has not been received till date- The respondents have averred that after examining the documents annexed with the writ petition, it has transpired that the petitioner has claimed that he was externed under verbal orders of the then Ruler of State of.Bilaspur, No other corroboratory documentary evidence was submitted except the certificates of S/Shri Kartar Singh, Ex. Dy, S. P , Khushi Mohammad and Khurshid Ahmad These certificates even are not in the performa prescribed under the Scheme of 1980. The certificate of Shri Kartar Singh, Ex Dy. S. P of State of Bilaspur is acceptable subject to verification by the State Government, Similarly, the certificate of Shri Khurshid Ahmad is acceptable subject to verification by the State Government. The certificate of Shri Khushi Mohammad does not prove jail sufferings of minimum period of two years as required under the Scheme of 1980. It was, therefore, averred that in the absence of documentary evidence to support the claim of the petitioner and in the absence of necessary recommendations by the State Government as to the eligibility of the petitioner for the grant of pension, the application of the petitioner does not warrant any favourable consideration and is liable for rejection. 4. We have beard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri P. A. Sharma, Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri Inder Singh, the learned Advocate General for respondent No. 2 and have also perused the record of the case 5. Annexure P-4 to the writ petition is the copy of the letter dated 24-8-1981 of the Deputy Secretary (G A. D) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh whereby the application of the petitioner alongwith applications of nine other persons was forwarded to respondent No. 1 with a request to consider the same and grant the Freedom Fighters Pension in favour of the petitioner and other nine applicants. The receipt of this application of the petitioner, as stated above, stands admitted by the respondent No. 1 It is also admitted that the application, was duly supported by certificate of Shri Kartar Singh Ex, Dy. S P. of State of Bilaspur and that of S/Shri JChurshid Ahmad and Khushi Mohammad, freedom fighters. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in Sukh Lal v, Union of India and another. C W. P. No 325 of 1991, decided on 1542-1992, on similar facts by relying upon the certificates of Shri Kartar Singh, Ex. Dy. S P. of State of Bilaspur and that of S/Shri JChurshid Ahmad and Khushi Mohammad, freedom fighters. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in Sukh Lal v, Union of India and another. C W. P. No 325 of 1991, decided on 1542-1992, on similar facts by relying upon the certificates of Shri Kartar Singh, Ex. Dy. S, P, of State of Bilaspur, and Shri Khushl Mohammad, who is also in receipt of Freedom Fighter Pension, had held the petitioner Sukh Lal to be a freedom fighter and entitled to Freedom Fighters Pension, The respondents were accordingly directed to decide the case of the petitioner Sukh Lal within two months and make payment of the pension to him from the due date. While dealing with the certificates of S/Shri Kartar Singh and Khushi Mohammad, it was observed:— "Certificate of Khushi Mohammad further supports the case of the petitioner as to his externment from 1946 to 1948, He is also in receipt of Freedom Fighter Pension under PPO No. 352/FF/ Centre. As to the externment order Dy. S. P. Kartar Singh has also given a certificate saying that the petitioner was exiled from Bilaspur State w.e.f. October 1946 to October 1948, on the charge that he was taking active part in the Praja Mandal Movement (Freedom Movement). He is a Police Officer, therefore, had intimate knowledge about the state-of-affairs prevailing in this State at that particular time and more particularly about the externment of the petitioner.” 7. In the present case as well, in view of the certificates submitted by the petitioner, there is no manner of doubt that the petitioner is a freedom fighter. He was involved in the movements for the freedom of the Country and for the annexation of the then princely State of Bilaspur in the dominion of India, The participation of the petitioner in the freedom movement stands distinctly and squarely established and it would be highly unreasonable to demand any further proof from him in support of his claim for Freedom Fighters Pension. 8. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner is a freedom fighter and entitled to Freedom Fighters Pension. The respondents are directed to decide the case of the petitioner within two months and to pay the pension to the petitioner from the due date. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No orders as to costs. Order accordingly.