Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 287 (HP)

RANJIT SINGH GULERIA v. UNION OF INDIA

2000-11-08

KAMLESH SHARMA, M.R.VERMA

body2000
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.:- The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate writ/direction to the following effects: a) That the petitioner be declared to be a Freedom Fighter and be granted pension under the Swatantarta Sainaini Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 from the date of his application. b) That the order of rejection dated 26.7.1998 (Annexure-PF) may be quashed. c) That the respondent No. 1 be directed to pay arrears of pension to the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of his application. 2. Case of the petitioner is that before 12.10.1948 he was a subject of the ex-ruler of erstwhile State of Bilaspur and a member of Praja Mandal Movement which was working for the independence of the country and merger of the State of Bilaspur in the Union of India. He earned displeasure of the then ruler of Bilaspur State and was externed under the verbal orders of the ruler in May 1946 and was threatened to be arrested and jailed if he entered Bilaspur. He could return to his home in Bilaspur in October 1918 after the merger of the State of Bilaspur in the Union of India. During the period of his externment the petitioner and his family suffered both physically and financially. 3. In the year 1972 the Govt. of India promulgated a scheme known as "Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972" to recognize the sacrifices made by those who struggled for the freedom of the country. This scheme was further liberalised in the year 1980 and was re-named as "The Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980". Under this scheme the benefit of pension was extended to all Freedom Fighters as a token of Samman to them. Because of the deterioraton in his financial condition and family obligations, the petitioner was compelled to apply for grant of pension and benefits of the said scheme. Along with his applicaton to respondent No. 1 made on 21.9.1995 he attached the required documentary proof of his being a Freedom Fighter as required under the scheme. One of such document is the certificate issued in his favour by Mr. Chet Ram a Freedom Fighter who had been sentenced to imprisonment for two years, a copy whereof is Annexure PA on the record. One of such document is the certificate issued in his favour by Mr. Chet Ram a Freedom Fighter who had been sentenced to imprisonment for two years, a copy whereof is Annexure PA on the record. When the petitioner came to know at a later stage that the respondent No. 1 has agreed to accept certification of the claim of sufferings for freedom by a person against verbal orders of the rulers of the Princely States, he furnished a certificate issued by a contemporary Government official, i.e. Shri Kartar Singh, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur a copy whereof is annexure PC on the record. He had further furnished the certificates issued in his favour by Mr. Durga Datt, a Freedom Fighter and Mr. Narotam Datt Shastri, an ex-MLA and Vice President of the then Bilaspur Praja Mandal. Respondent No. 2 verified the genuineness and veracity of the documents submitted by the petitioner and declared him a freedom fighter. The petitioner apprised respondent No. 1 of this fact. On 18.11.1996 when the petitioner visited the concerned office of the respondent No. 1 it was found that except his application, no other record was available in the office; therefore, on demand the petitioner submitted another application along with the requisite supporting documents in proof of his being a Freedom Fighter on 19.11.1996. However, he received a letter dated 24.10.1997 from respondent No. 1 asking him to furnish original certificate issued by Ex-Deputy Superintendent of Police Mr. Kartar Singh. Petitioner informed respondent No. 1 that original certificate had already been submitted by him alongwith his application dated 21.9.1995. The respondent No. I, however, refused to grant Freedom Fighters pension to the petitioner which led him to file CWP No. 403/98 in this Court. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, this court passed the following orders in the said CWP. "We find that from the categorical statement ofthe State Govt. The respondent No. I, however, refused to grant Freedom Fighters pension to the petitioner which led him to file CWP No. 403/98 in this Court. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, this court passed the following orders in the said CWP. "We find that from the categorical statement ofthe State Govt. about the sufferings of the petitioner in the Praja Mandal Movement and granting him the pension under the State Scheme and further recommending his case to the respondent Union of India, the grounds again reiterated bythe respondent Union of India in the communication dated 7th January 1998 addressed to the petitioner are not found to be factually correct and wrong impresison has been given to the court by way of affidavit filed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India that the State Government have not awarded pension to the petitioner and his case was never recommended by the State Govt. to respondent-Union of India". 4. On re-consideration the respondent No. 1 rejected the claim of the petitioner and the rejection order was conveyed to him vide communication dated 26.7.1999, a copy whereof is annexure PF on the record. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. In its reply the respondent No. 2 has not controverted the material facts as stated in the writ petition and has admitted that the claim of the petitioner was considered by the sub-committee of the H.P. Freedom Fighters Board in its 38-Meeting held on 21.3.1996 and the petitioner was declared freedom fighter with the facilities to be granted to him with effect from 21.3.1996 onwards for his life time. 6. Respondent No. 1 in its reply contested the claim of the petitioner and averred therein that the case of the petitioner was considered in the light of this courts judgment dated 7.6.1999 and was rejected after careful examination as per the contents of Annexure R-1. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and the learned Addtional Advocate General for respondent No. 2 and have also gone through the material placed on record. 8. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and the learned Addtional Advocate General for respondent No. 2 and have also gone through the material placed on record. 8. The claim of the petitioner has admittedly been rejected by respondent No. 1 as per the contents of Annexure R-l on the following grounds: (I) That the certificate issued by Deputy Superintendent of Police Kartar Singh in 1985 was not given in the official capacity because he had ceased to be the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Princely State of Bilaspur in October 1948 when the said State merged with the Union of India, therefore, the certificate which was not given in the official capaicty, has got no evidenciary value as the same is not based on records. (ii) That the two other certificates certifying that the petitioner had been underground, had been issued by S/Shri Chet Ram, Narottam Datt Shastri and Pt. Durga Dass but none of them had claimed that he had got a proven two years jail sufferings to his credit, therefore, all of them are ineligible certifiers and the certificates issued by them could not be accepted. (iii)That the case of the petitioner was examined in consultation with the State Government (respondent No. 2) but the State Government did not recommend the case of the petitioner. On the contrary it was reported by the State that the records of the Freedom Fighters are available but the sufferings of the petitioner are not proved therefrom. 9. It is not in dispute but is specifically admitted by the Government of India vide contents of Annexure -PG that the concerned Ministry considers claim of extemment/underground sufferings against verbal orders of Raja of Bilaspur State before it merged into the Union of India on the basis of certification by the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police and Minister-in-charge concerned. In view of this admission, the certificate Annexure -PC issued by Shri Kartar Singh the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur State on 26.7.1985 could not be rejected on the ground that it was issued by him when he was no more in service and as such the certificate was not issued in his official capacity. In view of this admission, the certificate Annexure -PC issued by Shri Kartar Singh the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur State on 26.7.1985 could not be rejected on the ground that it was issued by him when he was no more in service and as such the certificate was not issued in his official capacity. Said Kartar Singh ceased to be Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Princely State of Bilaspur in October 1948 till which date the petitioner allegedly remained externed from the State, therefore, during the continuation of said kartar Singh as Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Erstwhile State of Bilaspur neither the petitioner could approach him to grant him the requisite certificate nor Shri Kartar Singh would have issued such a certificate to an externed person being the employee of the ruler on whose oral orders the petitioner is alleged to have been externed. Even according to the contents of Annexure-PG, the certification about extern-ment/remaining underground is required to be made by then concerned official and not by such person who continued to be in service till the date of issue of certificate. Be it stated here that on the basis of the certificates issued by said Shri Kartar Singh, Freedom Fighters pensions have been awarded to many persons claiming to be Freedom Fighters to which we shall refer a little later. In any case, the certificate issued by Kartar Singh could not have been rejected on the ground that it was not issued by him in his official capacity. 10. The other certificate, that is, Annexure-PA purporting to have been issued by shri Chet Ram, Freedom Fighter and the certificate issued by Shri Narotam Datt Shastri, Ex-M.L.A. and Vice-President of Bilaspur Prajamanda! could also not be termed as having been issued by ineligible persons for the reasons that they are the renowned Freedom Fighters of the State of Himachal Pradesh. On the basis of the certificates issued by them pensions as Freedom Fighters had been granted in various cases. A reference may here be made to some of such cases. In CWP No. 540 of 1990 (Lekh Ram v. Union of India &Anr. decided on 11.5.1993, a Division Bench of this court held the petitioner therein entitled for the pension under the scheme on the basis of the certificates issued amongst others by S/Shri Chet Ram, Freedom Fighter and Kartar Singh, Ex.-Dy.S.P. aforesaid. In CWP No. 540 of 1990 (Lekh Ram v. Union of India &Anr. decided on 11.5.1993, a Division Bench of this court held the petitioner therein entitled for the pension under the scheme on the basis of the certificates issued amongst others by S/Shri Chet Ram, Freedom Fighter and Kartar Singh, Ex.-Dy.S.P. aforesaid. In CWP No. 466 of 1995 (Sant Ram v. Union of India & Ann decided on 21.9.1995, similar claim of the petitioner therein was allowed on the basis of certificates issued by Ex-Dy. S.P. Kartar Singh aforesaid and two Freedom Fighters. In CWP No. 745 of 1995 (Narain Dass v. Union of India & Ann decided on 21.9.1995, the petitioner therein was held entitled for grant of Freedom Fighters pension on the basis of the certificates issued by S/Shri Narotam Datt Shastri, Chet Ram, Freedom Fighters and Ex-Dy. S.P. Kartar Singh who have issued the certificates in favour of the petitioner in this case. In CWP No. 385 of 1994 (Chandu Ram v. Union of India & Anr. decided on 22.3.1995, the petitioner therein was held entitled for grant of Freedom Fighters pension on the basis of the certificates issued by S/Shri Narotam Datt Shastri aforesaid, Khushi Mohammad and Ganga Ram Bhardwaj, Freedom Fighters and it was held that the certificate issued by Shri Narotam Datt Shastri was sufficient to prove the claim of the petitioner. In CWP No. 539 of 1990 (Prabhu Ram v. Union of India & anr. decided on 29.12.1994, the petitioner therein was held entitled to Swatantarta Sainik Samman pension on the basis of the certificates issued by shri kartar singh, Ex-Dy. S.P. and a few other certificates issued by Freedom Fighters and an Ex-M.L.A. In CWP No. 756 of 1995 (Jeet Ram v. Union of India & Anr. decided oh 21.9.1995, the petitioner therein was held entitled for the grant of Freedom Fighters pension on the basis of the certificates issued by S/Shri Narotam Datt Shastri, Ex-M.L.A., Chet Ram aforesaid and one more Freedom Fighters. In these circumstances, the certificates issued by S/Shri Narotam Datt Shastri, Ex-M.L.A., Chet Ram aforesaid and one more Freedom Fighter. In these circumstances, the certificates issued by S/Shri Chet Ram Kartar Singh and Narotam Datt Shastri in favour of the petitioner could not be rejected merely on the ground that those were issued by ineligible persons. 11. In these circumstances, the certificates issued by S/Shri Narotam Datt Shastri, Ex-M.L.A., Chet Ram aforesaid and one more Freedom Fighter. In these circumstances, the certificates issued by S/Shri Chet Ram Kartar Singh and Narotam Datt Shastri in favour of the petitioner could not be rejected merely on the ground that those were issued by ineligible persons. 11. To substantiate the third ground of rejection of the case of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 has relied on Annexure R-2, i.e. a communication dated 21.6.1998 from the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (GAD) to Government of Himachal Pradesh to the Under-Secretary to the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. It is apparent from the contents of Annexure R-2 that the State Government has not stated in the said communication that the petitioner is eligible for the grant of Samman as a Freedom Fighter. At the same time the State Government has not stated therein that the petitioner is not entitled for the same. What the State Government has informed vide Annexure R-2 is that the petitioner is not mentioned as a Freedom Fighter in the available records of Freedom Fighters as maintained at the concerned District Headquarters, therefore, his case be decided on the basis of the documents furnished by the petitioner with his application and the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. However, the information given by respondent No. 2, i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh, to respondent No. 1 prima facie stand contradicted by the contents of the reply filed by respondent No. 2 to this writ petition wherein it has been clearly and unambiguously stated that the claim of the petitioner was considered by a Sub-Committee of the Himachal Pradesh Freedom Fighters Welfare Board in its 38th Meeting held on 21.3.1996 and the said Committee confirmed his sufferings during the Prajamandal Movement and the petitioner was declared Freedom Fighter with the facilities to be granted to him with effect from 21.3.1996 onwards for his life time. In view of this reply, respondent No. 2 could not claim that it has no record what-so-over about the sufferings of the petitioner as a Freedom Fighter. In view of this reply, respondent No. 2 could not claim that it has no record what-so-over about the sufferings of the petitioner as a Freedom Fighter. Since the recommendations of the State about the claim of a Freedom Fighters does not appear to be binding on the Union of India, therefore, want of any recommendation having been made by the State cannot be a valid and logical reason to refuse the claim of the petitioner, particularly, when the State itself has treated the petitioner a Freedom Fighter. 12. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the reasons assigned by respondent No. 1 for rejecting the claim of the petitioner are not valid and sustainable, therefore, order dated 26.7.1998 (Annexure -PF) rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the said grounds is liable to be quashed and the case of the petitioner deserves to be re-considered by respondent No. 1 on merits as per the certificates/documents attached by him with his application. 13. As a result, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the order Annexure-PF is quashed and set aside and respondent No. 1 is directed to re-consider and decide the claim of the petitioner in view of the supporting documents furnished by the petitioner alongwith his application and the observations made here-in-above within three months from the date of this order. Rest of the reliefs claimed in the petition calls for no orders in view of the above orders. 14. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.