Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1323 (RAJ)

Shanti Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2002-07-29

K.S.RATHORE

body2002
Honble RATHORE, J.–The petitioner is an old lady of 70 years whose deceased husband actively participated in Arya Samaj Movement in the year 1913 within the erstwhile Nizams State of Hyderabad and was convicted and remained in jail for one year and three months. (2). In the year 1972 Central Government implemented a scheme for grant of pension to the freedom fighters. Pursuant to that petitioners husband submitted the application for grant of pension. But the claim of the petitioners husband was rejected vide order dated 19.9.72. (3). Later on while recognising the active role and participation of the petitioners late husband in Arya Samaj Movement, he was advised by the respondent No. 1 to submit certificates about his sufferings for proper and necessary action. In the mean while when the matter for grant of pension by the State Government was pending before the state authority, the petitioners husband died on 29.10.87. State Government vide its order dated 2.12.89 granted pension to dependent of freedom fighters. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was recognised a freedom fighter by the State Government and under the scheme formulated by the Central Government. The petitioners husband has suffered imprisonment for more than six months, he is entitled for the freedom fighters pension under this scheme. Petitioners husband also furnished imprisonment certificate which was issued by the Superintendent, Orangabad Central prison on the application and same has been submitted by the petitioners husband before the Central Government for grant of freedom fighter pension under the scheme. (5). During the pendency of the application so moved by the petitioners husband the petitioner also informed the authority that her husband Shri Mool Chand Tanwar died on 29.10.87 and prayed for pension as dependent of freedom fighter. (6). But vide Annex. 11 which was issued on August 88 the petitioners claim was rejected on the ground that application was received in this Ministry without documentary evidence in support of jail sufferings after the expiry of the last date i.e. 30.6.86. As such them claim of the petitioner was rejected as being time- barred. (7). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Honble Supreme Court has recognised the petitioners in Arya Samaj Movement as a freedom fighter and allowed the pension to the persons who participated in the Arya Samaj Movement. (8). As such them claim of the petitioner was rejected as being time- barred. (7). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Honble Supreme Court has recognised the petitioners in Arya Samaj Movement as a freedom fighter and allowed the pension to the persons who participated in the Arya Samaj Movement. (8). Pursuant to the Supreme Court judgment the petitioner also submitted fresh representation before the respondent No. 3 but the representation was not considered by the respondent. Petitioner also pointed out this fact that similarly situated person who participated in Arya Samaj Movement has been recognised and granted freedom fighter pension. (9). Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment reported in Gurdial Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (1), wherein Honble Supreme Court has held that the scheme was introduced with the object of providing grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families and to the family of martyrs. It has to be kept in mind that millions of masses of this country and participated in the freedom struggle without any expectation of grant of any scheme at the relevant time. It has also to be kept in mind that in the partition of the country most of the citizens who suffered imprisonment were handicapped to get the relevant record from the jails where they had suffered imprisonment. (10). Honble Supreme Court further observed that the pension under the present Scheme is only benefit made available to the freedom fighters or their dependants. (11). In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of this High Court passed in Vaidh Jyoti Swaroop Vyas vs. Union of India & Anr. (2), decided on 6.5.1998 and in the case of Ramchandra D. Erande vs. Union of India & Anr. (3) and Kamla Bai vs. Union of India & Ors (4) and Prare Lal Mishra vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (5). (12). Learned counsel for the respondents submits the scheme of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 wherein the person who has suffered minimum imprisonment of six months on account of participation in freedom struggle subject to furnishing the evidences to this effect. He also pointed out the eligibility criteria for grant of pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980. (13). Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. He also pointed out the eligibility criteria for grant of pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980. (13). Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Vijay Singh submits that claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected since it was not supported with the documentary evidence and subsequently it was rightly rejected on the ground of delay. (14). Having heard rival submissions of the parties and after careful examination of the material available on record as well as judgments referred before me I am of the vie3 that ratio decided by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) is fully applicable to the instant case. (15). Since petitioners husband has filed an application before the respondents along with the requisite documents and thereafter the petitioner submitted an application along with the death certificate of her husband and the certificate or imprisonment before the concerned authority. It is also relevant that Government of Rajasthan has granted the pension to the petitioner vide letter dated 19.9.72 and name of Shri Mool Chand find place at Sl. No. 10 where it was considered that Mool Chand has suffered imprisonment for a period of one year and three months and further by bare perusal of the imprisonment certificate it reveals that he has suffered imprisonment for more than six months meaning thereby under the scheme the petitioner is eligible to get the pension from the Central Government. But the claim of petitioner was rejected by the Central Government on the ground of delay. (16). So far as the delay is concerned I also gone through the application moved by the petitioner. During the pendency of the matter the petitioners husband was expired that too was timely informed to the Central Government, therefore, rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay is not justified. (17). In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to direct the Central Government to consider the case of the petitioner considering the imprisonment certificate which was furnished by the petitioners husband and also considering this fact that the claim which was moved by the petitioner is well within time and grant the pension for freedom fighter in view of the Honble Supreme Court direction (supra) under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 expeditiously. (18). With these observations writ petition stands allowed.