Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 126 (HP)

DAYA RAM THROUGH LR. v. UNION OF INDIA

2003-05-28

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

body2003
JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. - This writ petition was initially filed by Daya Ram under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order to the respondents. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition are to the following effects: "(i) that respondent be directed to declare the petitioner to be a freedom fighter and be further directed to grant him pension from 1974 alongwith interest when he first applied, (ii) that is the alternative, respondents be directed to grant pension to the petitioner under the Freedom Fighters Scheme from the date of his fresh application dated 4.1.1994. (iii) That the respondent No. 1 may be directed to produce the relevant record of the case. (iv) That any other writ, order or direction as this Honble Court may deem fit, may kindly be passed. (v) Cost of this writ petition may also be allowed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.". 2. Daya Ram the original petitioner claimed to be a Member of Praja Mandal Movement of the then Bilaspur State. Praja Mandal Movement was affiliated to the "All India State Peoples Conference" of which Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru was the Chairman. The Bilaspur State was a princely State before Independence. According to the petitioner the Rulers of this State ruled with iron hands and resisted all efforts that were being made to merge this State with the Union of India and it was only on 12.10.1948 that Bilaspur State finally merged in the Union of India. The Raja of Bilaspur made all efforts to suppress the movement by imprisoning or ordering the externment and internment of the workers of Praja Mandal Movement. The original petitioner being an active member of the Praja Mandal Movement earned displeasure of the Ruler of the Bilaspur State and he was externed from the State on the verbal orders of the ruler in the year 1946. Daya Ram was threatened that he would be arrested and jailed if he entered Bilaspur State. The original petitioner remained externed for two years during which his family suffered heavily both financially and physically. 3. The Government of India promulgated the scheme known as Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972. The scheme provided for the grant of pension to living freedom fighters, their families if they are no more alive and to the families of martyrs. The original petitioner remained externed for two years during which his family suffered heavily both financially and physically. 3. The Government of India promulgated the scheme known as Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972. The scheme provided for the grant of pension to living freedom fighters, their families if they are no more alive and to the families of martyrs. The minimum pension to a freedom fighter is Rs.200/- month and in case of family it will vary from Rs.100/- to Rs.200/- per month. The family includes mother, father, and widower/widow. : 4. The original petitioner first applied to the respondents somewhere in the year 1974 for the grant of Freedom Fighter pension and then he sent reminders in 1975 and 1976 for condoning the delay in applying for the pension. The application and letters of the original petitioner were rejected by respondent No. 1 Union of India by letter dated 8.1.1976. A copy of the said letter is annexured as Annexure PA to this writ petition. The original petitioner again applied for the grant of pension in the years 1976 and 1981 but being an illiterate person he did not keep any record of those applications and his applications deemed to have been rejected as no reply was sent to him. The original petitioner thereafter did not follow up the matter and resigned himself to his fate. He, however, came to know in the end .of 1993 that the Honble Supreme Court of India had issued directions to the Union of India in the matter of Mukand Lal Bhandari v. Union of India not to reject applications of freedom fighters on the ground of delay and that it was the duty of the Union of India to identify persons who had worked for the freedom of the contrary and accorded them due recognition and pension in accordance with the Scheme. The original petitioner again applied to the respondents for the grant of pension on the prescribed form on 4.1.1994 and his application was duly acknowledged by respondent’s No. 1 and 2 on 11.1.1994 and 10.1.1994 respectively. Copies of the acknowledgement receipts are filed with the writ petition as Annexure PB and PB/1. According to the original petitioner in support of his application he submitted the certificates of other freedom fighters namely, Shri Khushi Mohd. (Annexure PC/1): Sh. Chet Ram (Annexure PD), Kishori Lal Tadoo (Annexure PE/1) and Sh. Copies of the acknowledgement receipts are filed with the writ petition as Annexure PB and PB/1. According to the original petitioner in support of his application he submitted the certificates of other freedom fighters namely, Shri Khushi Mohd. (Annexure PC/1): Sh. Chet Ram (Annexure PD), Kishori Lal Tadoo (Annexure PE/1) and Sh. Durga Dass (Annexure PF) who are the recipients of the Freedom Fighters Pension. The original petitioner averred that till the date of filing of the writ petition in August, 1995, the respondents have not granted pension to him nor he was informed about the fate of his applications and as such the applications of the original petitioner deemed to have been rejected. On these premises, the original petitioner stated that being eligible Freedom Fighter for the grant of pension, the respondents shall be directed to grant the above said reliefs to him. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner) Daya Ram died on 9.7.2001. Smt. Kala Devi wife of deceased Daya; Ram filed application for bringing her on record to prosecute the writ petition after the death of her husband. Her prayer was allowed by the Court by order dated 10.4.2002. Smt. Kala Devi is substituted as petitioner in place of her deceased husband Daya Ram and hereinafter she shall be referred to as the petitioner. 6. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1-Union of India has been filed by Shri R.C. Handa, Section Officer Military of Home Affairs Freedom Fighters Division, New Delhi. The Freedom Fighters Scheme, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme, 1972) was liberalized and was renamed as Swantrata Sanik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for short Scheme, 19801). Respondent No. 1-Union of India stated that Bilaspur was a princely State were Praja Mandal Movement was launched before its merger with the Union of India in October, 1948. A number of Freedom Fighters of the Bilaspur District of Himachal Pradesh had submitted their applications claiming internment/externment sufferings against verbal orders of Ruler of Ex-Bilaspur State. These claims had been rejected on the ground that sufferings against verbal orders were not recognized under the Scheme. A number of Freedom Fighters of the Bilaspur District of Himachal Pradesh had submitted their applications claiming internment/externment sufferings against verbal orders of Ruler of Ex-Bilaspur State. These claims had been rejected on the ground that sufferings against verbal orders were not recognized under the Scheme. Subsequently in 1989 it was realized that the administration in the Princely States was less record based than the administration in British India and, therefore, it could not be fair to accept the same standard of proof from freedom fighters of these States as freedom fighters belonging to British India. The competent authority, therefore, decided that in cases of sufferings claimed against verbal orders in connection with the freedom struggle, the certificates of the then authorities like Superintendent of Police or Ministers may be accepted in relaxation of the norms of the Scheme in support of the sufferings and pension sanctioned prospectively. The relaxation was allowed keeping in view the genuine difficulties faced by the participants in Praja Mandal Movement for merger of the ex-Bilaspur State into the Indian Union in producing documentary evidence based on official records in respect of their sufferings against verbal orders. It is also stated that the secondary evidence, such as, certificates from prominent freedom fighters can be accepted only if they have proven jail sufferings of 2 years and whose area of operation was the same and who belonged to the same administrative unit. However, it is stated that as per the provisions of the Scheme and the instructions issued thereunder, Swantrata Sanik Samman Pension can be sanctioned only on the basis of the State Governments verification and recommendation. The stand of the respondent-Union of India is that the Supreme Court in its judgment in W.P. No. 153/92, M.L Bhandari and Others v. Union of India, decided on 14.5.1993 held that sanction of pension would be subject to the requisite proof in support of the claim and that it is for the Government and not for the Court to pronounce upon the genuineness or otherwise of the documentary evidence which the applicants produce in support of their claims. It is admitted that Daya Rams first application dated 19.2.1974 was received in the Ministry on 26.7.1974 in which he had claimed that he was imprisoned in Bilaspur Jail owning to his participation in Praja Mandal Movement of 1946-48 and had remained employed for two years due to his participation in the aforesaid Movement. In support of his claim the original petitioner submitted certificate of shri Kishori Lal Tadu as supportive evidence. The application of Daya Ram was rejected as time barried. Daya Ram again represented his claim for the grant of pension but this time he changed his suffering from imprisonment and unemployment to that of internment and his application was again rejected vide letter dated 8.1.1976. According to respondent-Union of India, lately in his application, dated 4.1.1994 original petitioner claimed that he was externed from Bilaspur State from 1946 to 1948 on the verbal orders of Raja of Bilaspur but he failed to produce any acceptable evidence in support of his claim. Further, it is stated that Daya Ram has not submitted any order of externment or any other corroboratory evidence except the certificates of Sh. Khushi Mohd, Sh. Chet Ram and Sh. Durga Dass, Even the above certificates are not in prescribed proforma under the Scheme which in fact is part of the application form. The certificates of the above said persons were not accepted as they have not indicated their own jail suffering in connection with the freedom struggle as only those freedom fighters who have suffered for a minimum period of two years in jail in connection with the freedom struggle and whose area of operation was the same as that of the applicant Daya Ram are eligible to give personal knowledge certificates in support of the claim of underground/internment/externment sufferings of applicant-Daya Ram. The State Government while forwarding the report of Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur did not recommend or reject the case, but Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur in his report dated 17.10.1974 clearly stated that petitioner-Daya Ram was not eligible for the grant of pension as no documentary evidence was available in the office to verify his claim. 7. On behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh, Joint Secretary (GAD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh filed an affidavit in opposition to the writ petition... 7. On behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh, Joint Secretary (GAD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh filed an affidavit in opposition to the writ petition... The stand of the State Government is that Daya Ram has failed to produce documentary proof from a freedom fighter in whose presence the Ruler of Bilaspur State had given verbal orders to him for his externment from the State in the year 1946. The petitioner has also failed to specify in the petition the period of his externment as announced in the verbal order of Raja of Bilaspur whereas he has produced the incomplete certificates from persons who are not eye witnesses to the announcement of his externment and also the threats of putting him in jail in case he would return back to the State. However, it is admitted that the State Government had forwarded the application of Daya Ram along with the verification report of the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur to the Union of India vide letter No. GAD-F-F (4)-2/94-B-Part-l dated 26.11.1994 for sympathetic consideration on the basis of documents submitted by him. 8. In rejoinder filed to the counter of respondent-Union of India the original petitioner has stated that in his first application he had explained to the respondents vide letter dated 12.12.1995 that the application form of 1974 did not contain any column for seeking particulars of externment. Original petitioner being an illiterate person got the form filled in from somebody else and was not aware as to the contents of the same and any discrepancy which may have arisen was due to this reason. A true copy of the letter dated 12.12.1995 was sent by the original petitioner to R.C. Handa, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs in reply to Letter No. N2/17/LA/8/74/Ff (HP) dated 22.11.1995. The original petitioner stated that the respondent-Union of India has adopted an callous and indifferent attitude towards the Freedom Fighters and trying to scuttle their claims on one pretext or the other. The original petitioner stated that the respondent-Union of India has adopted an callous and indifferent attitude towards the Freedom Fighters and trying to scuttle their claims on one pretext or the other. The Union of India has deliberately made a misstatement that the State Government has not recommended the case of Daya Ram whereas the reply filed by the State as well as copy of letter dated 17th October, 1994 (Annexure R-IV) sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur to the Under Secretary (GAD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh would go to show that the State Government has supported the claim of the original petitioner and has recommended his case. Further, it is submitted that original petitioner is similarly situated as various other freedom fighters who have been granted pension on the basis of similar certificates as those submitted by the petitioner. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that Daya Ram applied for freedom fighter pension under Scheme 1972 in the year 1975 and his application had been wrongly rejected by the Union of India on the ground of limitation whereas the same was considered to have been filed within the extended period of limitation. She also contended that Daya Ram again applied in the year 1976 but he did not receive submitted another representation to the respondents. She also contended that the case of the husband of the petitioner is fully covered by 1972 Scheme and liberalized Scheme, 1980. The learned Counsel in support of her contentions relied on the decisions of Division Benches of this Court in CWP No. 539 of 1990 Prabhu Ram v. Union of India and another decided on 29.12.1994 : Sukh Lal v. Union of India and others, AIR 1993 Himachal Pradesh 65 : CWP No. 540/90, Lekh Ram v. Union of India and others, decided on 11.5.1993; CWP No. 1980/95 Jiwanu Ram v. Union of India, decided on 14.3.1996, CWP No. 385/94 Chandu Ram v. Union of India and others, decided on 22.3.1995; R. Narayanan v. Union of India and another, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 746 and Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and others, 2001(8) Supreme Court Cases 8. 11. Per contra, Mr. Ankush Sood learned Add! 11. Per contra, Mr. Ankush Sood learned Add! Central Government Standing Counsel contended that Daya Ram in his first application filed in the year 1974 claimed freedom fighter pension on the basis of imprisonment whereas lateron he changed his stand and claimed pension on verbal order of internment or externment of the Ruller of Bilaspur and in support of his claim Daya Ram could not prove by leading corroboratory documentary evidence that he was externed by Raja of Bilaspur in 1946. He next contended that first application of the petitioner was rejected by the Competent Authority of the Union of India on the ground of limitation as per note (i) of 1972 scheme. He further contended that as per circular No. 14/77 dated 12th August, 1977 (Annexure R-lll) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, the claim of Daya Ram could not be granted as the State Government had not recommended his case for the grant of pension. He lastly contended that the ratio of the judgments relied on by the petitioner will not ipso facto apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case as these orders were decided on the material produced on the record by the persons who filed those cases. 12. I have given my anxious and careful consideration to the respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. 13. It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner was a 1 resident of princely State of Bilaspur. He participated in the, Praja Mandal Movement alongwith other participants. He applied for the grant of pension under 1972 Scheme in the year 1974 but his application was rejected by the Union of India mainly on the ground of delay as per communication dated 8.1.1976 (Annexure PA) sent to him. Daya Ram submitted second application in the year 1976 claiming pension on account of his externment by verbal orders of Raja of Bilaspur. The Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 came into force from 15th August, 1982 under clauses 3, sub-clause (c) of the 1972 Scheme which is relevant for the purpose of this case, a person who was interned in his home or externed from his District for six months or more is eligible to freedom fighter pension. The Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 came into force from 15th August, 1982 under clauses 3, sub-clause (c) of the 1972 Scheme which is relevant for the purpose of this case, a person who was interned in his home or externed from his District for six months or more is eligible to freedom fighter pension. Under the heading of procedure in clauses 3, the applicant is required to file an affidavit with the copy of the order of internment or externment or any other corroboratory documentary evidence, 1972 Scheme was liberalized and renamed as Swatantrata Sanik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. Under Scheme 1980 the minimum quantum of pension was increased and the condition of the annual income ceiling of Rs.5,000/- has been removed from 1st August, 1980. The benefit of 1980 Scheme has been extended to all freedom fighters as a token to Samman to them. Under eligibility clauses of 1980 Scheme 4(c) it is stipulated that a person interned in his home or externed from his District is eligible for Samman pension provided the period of internment/externment was for six months or more. For claiming pension under the clause, internment or externment order passed by the authorities has to be submitted with the application or any other corroboratory documentary evidence. The certificate from prominent freedom fighters who had themselves undergone imprisonment for five years or more if the official records are not available are accepted as proof of the claim of the applicant. The certifier veteran freedom fighters and the applicant should belong to the same administrative unit before the reorganization of States and their areas of operation must be the same. Daya Ram in support of his application filed certificates of Khushi Mohd. (Annexure PC) dated 25.2.1985 who belonged to the princely State of Bilaspur before the reorganization of the State and participated in the Praja Mandal Movement in the year 1946. He had undergone imprisonment for five years in Patiala jail and has been declared as freedom fighter getting pension under PPO. No. 352 from the Union of India. He certified that deceased Daya Ram was personally known to him who actively participated in the Praja Mandal Movement and he was externed under the verbal order of Raja Bilaspur issued by Ex. Dy. S.P. Shri Kartar Singh. No. 352 from the Union of India. He certified that deceased Daya Ram was personally known to him who actively participated in the Praja Mandal Movement and he was externed under the verbal order of Raja Bilaspur issued by Ex. Dy. S.P. Shri Kartar Singh. Daya Ram worked for the party from outside the State during the year 1946 to 1948 for Praja Mandal Movement and at that time he suffered heavily while remaining outside. 14. The second certificate placed on record as Annexure PD was issued by Chet Ram resident of village Badhyana Pargana Admair, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. Chet Ram is also declared as freedom fighter by the Union of India with whom Daya Ram had been taking part in Praja Mandal Movement. Chet Ram had suffered two years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 600/-. He is getting pension vide PPO. No. 171B/307/72. He certified that Daya Ram was externed from Bilaspur State on the verbal order of Raja Bilaspur. Sh. Durga Dass a resident of Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur certified that Daya Ram of Tehsil Ghumarwin District Bilaspur was personally known to him who actively participated in Praja Mandal Movement due to which he was externed from Bilaspur State on the verbal order of Raja Bilaspur and Ex. Dy. S.P. Sh. Kartar Singh ousted Daya Ram from Bilaspur State. Daya Ram worked from outside Bilaspur during the year 1946 to 1948 and had suffered heavily remaining externed from Bilaspur. Durga Dass is also declared as freedom fighter by the Union of India and is getting pension vide PPO. No. 356. A copy of the certificate of Durga Dass is attached with the writ petition as Annexure PF. So far certificate (Annexure PE) given by Kishori Lal Tadoo, Ex-Parliamentary Secretary of the State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned, he has simply stated that Daya Ram participated in Praja Mandal Movement due to which he had suffered heavily in his business. The certificates given by Freedom Fighters namely Khushi Mohd. Chet Ram and Durga Ram are acceptable corroboratory documentary evidence as per the requirement of 1972 and 1980 schemes who are declared as freedom fighters by the Union of India and are receiving freedom fighters pension. They have categorically stated that on the verbal order of Raja Bilaspur Daya Ram was externed and he remained outside the princely State of Bilaspur from year 1946 to 1948. They have categorically stated that on the verbal order of Raja Bilaspur Daya Ram was externed and he remained outside the princely State of Bilaspur from year 1946 to 1948. The stand of the Union of India taken in this writ petition that late Daya Ram had taken different contradictory stand in his application cannot be accepted. It is the specific case of the husband of the petitioner in this writ petition that there was no column in the application form under 1972 Scheme in regard to internment or externment and, therefore, Daya Ram could not mention that fact in his first application. In reply dated 12.12.1995 (Annexure PD-1 to the rejoinder) Daya Ram clearly stated that there was no column seeking particulars of enternment in the form submitted by him in the year 1974 and it only contained a column seeking particulars of imprisonment. He also stated that being an illiterate person, the form was got filled in by him from somebody else, arid the certificates annexed with the application form as well as annexed with the writ petition would make it amply clear that he was imprisoned for about a week and subsequently externed under the verbal orders of the Raja Sahib from 1946 to 1948. Both the Schemes of 1972 and 1980 only require an affidavit and corroboratory documentary evidence without specifying the nature of the corroboratory documentary evidence. The certificates of Khushi Mohd. Chet Ram and Durga Dass are recipients of pension are considered sufficient to prove externment of Daya Ram. If respondent-Government of India had considered the documentary evidence produced by Daya Ram in the context of his affidavit, they would have found it difficult to reject his claim. 15. In view of the satisfactory proof of the nature of the evidence recorded above, there is no manner of doubt that Daya Ram was a. freedom fighter involved in the movements for the freedom of his! Country and annexation of princely State of Bilaspur in the dominion of, India. His participation is distinctly and squarely established and would be highly unreasonable to demand any further proof from a freedom fighter like Daya Ram to substantiate his case for pension. Country and annexation of princely State of Bilaspur in the dominion of, India. His participation is distinctly and squarely established and would be highly unreasonable to demand any further proof from a freedom fighter like Daya Ram to substantiate his case for pension. The case of the husband of the petitioner is directly and squarely covered by the decisions of the Division Bench of this court in CWP No. 539/90 Prabhu Ram v. Union of India and another, decided on 29.12.1994 : Sukh Lal v. Union of India and others, AIR 1993,Himachal Pradesh 65 : CWP No. 540/90, Lekh Ram v. Union of India and others, CWP No. 385/94 Chandu Ram v. Union of India and others, decided on 22.3.1995; CWP No. 1980/85 titled Jiwanu Ram v. Union of India, decided on 14.3.1996. 16. In R. Narayanan v. Union of India and another, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 746, the Supreme Court held as under :- "When a person claimed pension under the scheme on the ground of permanent loss of vision the left eye, the matter would be covered by clause (e) and he would be entitled to get the pension. In this connection, it would not be said that under the clause the incapacitation must not only be permanent but it must also be a total one. The Clause only refers to permanent incapacitation due to firing or lathi charge and not to total incapacitation. The words used in the Clauses are permanently incapacitated and not permanently totally incapacitated. What is to be remembered is that he scheme has been formulated with a view to acknowledge the services rendered to the country by patriotic citizens during the freedom movement and who has suffered at the hands of the British Rulers in one way or the other and to compensate them in some measure for their sacrifices for the sake of the country. Further objections to the grant of pension on the ground that the claim for grant of pension was an afterthought in that it was preferred after his claim on ground of incarceration had been rejected and on the further ground that he failed to produce documentary evidence from official records of the relevant period in support of his claim of loss of vision deserve outright rejection and outright condemnation. Merely because the claimant perhaps out of ignorance of the several heads under which the claim of pension could be made had applied initially for grant of pension under Clause (a), it can never be said that his present claim was an afterthought. Secondly, no one can really expect official records to have been preserved for a period of 40 years to prove the treatment given to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him during the freedom struggle." 17. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and others, 2001 Supreme Court Cases 8, considering the object and scope of Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 and Swatantrata Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, it is held in paragraph 6 of the report as under :- "6. The Scheme was introduced with the object of providing grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families and to the families of martyrs. Millions of masses of the country had participated in the freedom struggle without any expectation of grant of any Scheme at the relevant time. Moreover, 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. The problem of getting the. Record from a foreign country is very cumbersome and expensive. Therefore, in appreciating the Scheme for the benefit of freedom fighters a rational and not a technical approach is required to be adopted. It is also to be kept in mind that the claimants under the Scheme are supposed to be such persons who had given the best part of their fife for the country." This Court in Mukand Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 2 observed: (SCC pp. 7-8, para 9): "The object in making the said relaxation was not to reward or compensate the sacrifices made in the freedom struggle. The object was to honour and where it was necessary, also to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country in the hour of its need. In fact, many of those who do not have sufficient income to maintain themselves refuse to take benefit of it, since they consider it as an affront to the sense of patriotism with which they plunged in the freedom struggle. In fact, many of those who do not have sufficient income to maintain themselves refuse to take benefit of it, since they consider it as an affront to the sense of patriotism with which they plunged in the freedom struggle. The spirit of the Scheme being both to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge the valuable sacrifices made, it would be contrary to its spirit to convert it into some kind of a programme of compensation. Yet that may be the result if the benefit is directed to be given retrospectively whatever the date the application is made. The Scheme should retain its high objective with which it was motivated. It should not further be forgotten that now its benefit is made available irrespective of the income limit. Secondly, and this is equally important to note, since we are by this decision making the benefit of the Scheme available irrespective of the date on which the application is made, it would not be advisable to extend the benefit retrospectively. Lastly, the pension under the present Scheme is not the only benefit made available to the freedom fighters or their defendants. The preference in employment, allotment of accommodation and in admission to schools and colleges to their kith and kin etc. are also the other-benefits which have been made available to them for quite sometime now." 18. In paras 7 and 8 of the judgment in Gurdial Singhs case, it is observed: "7. The standard of proof required in such cases is not such standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of the parties, as the object of the Scheme is to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country, a liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking pension under the Scheme. It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by the Scheme had suffered for the country about half-a-century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them. Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the Scheme. Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the Scheme. The case of the claimants under this Scheme is required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touchstone of the test of "beyond reasonable doubt". Once on the basis of the evidence it is probability that the claimant had suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country and during the freedom struggle, a presumption is required to be drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence. "8. We have noticed with disgust that the respondent authorities have adopted a hyper technical approach while dealing with the case of a freedom fighter and ignored the basic principles/objectives of the Scheme intended to give the benefit to the suffers in the freedom movement. The contradictions and discrepancies, as noticed hereinabove, cannot be held to be material which could be made the basis of depriving the appellant of his right to get the pension. The case of the appellant has been disposed of by ignoring the mandate of law and the Scheme. The impugned order also appears to have been passed with a biased and closed mind, completely ignoring the verdict of the Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari case. We further fell that after granting the pension to the appellant, the respondents were not justified in rejecting his claim on the basis of material which already existed, justifying the grant of pension in his favour. The appellant has, unnecessarily, been dragged to litigation for no fault of his. The High Court has completely ignored its earlier judgments in Mohan Singh v. Union of India, decided on 1.6.1995 and CWP No. 1442 of 1995 decided on 11.12.1995." 19. (n the light of the proposition of law settled by the Supreme - Court and this Court in the above-said judgments, I am satisfied that order of the respondent-Union of India impugned In this writ petition (Annexure PA) dated 8.1.1976 is liable to be set aside and the husband of the petitioner is held entitled to the grant of relief of pension. The stand of the respondent-Union of India that the case of the husband of the petitioner was not recommended by the State Government is contrary to the object and spirit of the Scheme as there is no such condition contained either in 1972 Scheme or in the Swatantrata Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur in letter dated 17th October, 1994 (Annexure R-lV) addressed to the Under Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh has categorically stated that inquires had been got conducted through SDM (NA) Ghumarwin and Sadar in connection with the application for the grant of pension to Sh. Jai Singh and Daya Ram (deceased petitioner). The statements of the persons were recorded who had issued certificates in their cases. According to the statements, the applicant had taken part in the freedom struggle and they were eligible for the grant of pension, but no evidence based on official records was available about having their participated in the freedom struggle. Thereafter the State Government forwarded the application of the husband of the petitioner along with four certificates issued by freedom fighters Khushi Mohd. Chet Ram, Kishori Lal Tadoo and Durga Dass to the Union of India for favourable consideration. The defence of the State Government that certificates of internment/externment of the freedom fighters had to be submitted by a freedom fighter who was an eye witness when a verbal order was passed by Raja of Bilaspur against Daya Ram is highly hyper technical and contrary to the object and spirit of the Scheme. The claim of the husband of the petitioner is fully covered under the Scheme for the grant of freedom fighter pension. The contention of the learned Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel that the Court exercising the writ? Jurisdiction would not consider the sufficiency of the evidence and decide the eligibility of the husband of the petitioner as observed by the Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari and others v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 2127 cannot be accepted. This Court by pointing out the aforesaid facts is only deciding that the authority vested in the respondent-Union of India in this Scheme has not been exercised in accordance with the said Scheme. This Court by pointing out the aforesaid facts is only deciding that the authority vested in the respondent-Union of India in this Scheme has not been exercised in accordance with the said Scheme. If the Scheme requires proof in a particular manner, that is, furnishing of affidavit and other corroborative documentary evidence, the respondent-Union of India is not entitled to require proof of the fact in any other manner. It is therefore, a case where the respondent-Union of India is acting contrary to the Scheme in relation to the deceased husband of the petitioner. The deceased husband of the petitioner submitted a reply to Letter No. N2/17/8/74/FF (HP) dated 22.11.1995 of the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs but the respondent-Union of India kept the matter pending and no reply was sent to Daya Ram till date as there is no whisper in the affidavit of respondent-Union of India that claim of the deceased husband of the petitioner in his reply dated 12.12.1995 (Annexure PD-1 was considered by the authorities concerned. 20. No other point was urged by the learned Counsel for the parties. 21. In the result, for the above said reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the respondent-Union of India impugned in this writ petitioner dated 8th January, 1976 (Annexure PA) is set aside. The deceased husband of the petitioner is held entitled to the grant of pension from the .Union of India. However, keeping in view the lapse of time and peculiar circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant the pension to the deceased husband of the petitioner from the date, of the application filed by the deceased in the year 1974 as claimed and feel that the ends of justice would be met if the wife of the deceased petitioner is granted pension from August, 1995 when the deceased Daya Ram filed this writ petition.. Order accordingly. The arrears shall be calculated and paid to petitioner Smt. Kala Devi the legal representative of Daya Ram within period of three months from today ailing which she is held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from August, 1995 till the date the arrears are actually paid. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.