Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1248 (PNJ)

Avtar Singh v. Union Of India

2004-11-17

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2004
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.12.2000 passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India (Annexure P-6) whereby the Freedom Fighters Pension granted to the petitioner has been cancelled and the recovery of the amount already paid to the petitioner under the Scheme has been ordered. 2. On the 25th anniversary of Independence of India, the Government of India introduced a Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972, which was named as, Swatantrata Senani Samman Pension Scheme, 1972. As the petitioner had participated in the Quit India Movement and had undergone imprisonment during the period from 20.10.1942 to 20.10.1943, he applied for grant of Freedom Fighter Pension. He submitted two applications for the purpose i.e., one direct to the Government of India and another through Government of Punjab on 20.9.1992 (Annexure P-1 and P-2). In the application which was submitted direct to the Government of India, the petitioner mentioned the period of his imprisonment as 20.10.1942 to 15.8.1943. However, in the application which was forwarded by the Government of Punjab, the period of imprisonment has been mentioned as 20.10.1942 to 20.10.1943. The petitioner was granted provisional pension at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month by the Government of India vide order dated 24.5.1999 (Annexure P-3). As there was contradictions in the period of jail suffering mentioned by the petitioner in the two applications, the Government of India vide the impugned order dated 18.12.2000 (Annexure P-6) cancelled the pension granted to the petitioner and ordered recovery of the amount already paid to him under the Scheme. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Earlier the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of this Court on 4.4.2001 by passing the following order:- In view of the contradictory stand taken by the petitioner before the Government of India and the State of Punjab, we are of the view that the respondents were justified in canceling the grant of Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension. There is, thus, no ground for us to interfere in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. Sd/- (N.K. Sodhi) Judge. There is, thus, no ground for us to interfere in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. Sd/- (N.K. Sodhi) Judge. Sd/-April 4, 2001 (Bakhsihi Kaur) Judge 4 Against the afore-mentioned order, the petitioner filed Civil Appeal No. 8388 of 2001 before Hon ble the Supreme Court. The Apex Court set aside the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.12.2001 and restored the present writ petition to this Court for decision on merits. After admission, the writ petition has been placed before me for decision. 5. In order to contest the claim of the petitioner, the Government of India filed a written statement wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has not submitted any official proof with regard to his imprisonment. However, he has attached two co-prisoners certificates with his applications. Out of the two Co-Prisoners, the one namely Gopal Singh Quami, has been black-listed because he had given the requisite certificates to a large number of persons. It has further been submitted on behalf of the Union of India that the petitioner has given different dates in the two applications and similar affidavits have been sworn by him wherein contradictory dates of his imprisonment have been mentioned. 6. However, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is an illiterate old man. He has put his thumb-impressions on the two applications submitted by him. Thus, it has been contended by Ms. Sunnit Kaur, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the authorities should not indulge in intricacies and technicalities in suchlike cases. Rather a liberal approach to sanction a claim under the Scheme should be adopted on the basis of probabilities. The test under the Scheme should not be the same as is applied in criminal cases. In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and Ors., (2001)8 Supreme Court Cases 8. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the case file. I find merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is an illiterate old man. He is more than 70 years of age. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the case file. I find merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner is an illiterate old man. He is more than 70 years of age. In case there are contradictions in the two applications submitted by him on the same date, he cannot be blamed for that, taking into consideration his old age and illiteracy. He is also not expected to keep the record of his imprisonment with him after a lapse of 50 years. In case Gopal Singh Quami has been blacklisted on account of his having given Co-Prisoners Certificates indiscriminately to a large number of persons, the petitioner cannot be supposed to have the knowledge about the same. However, along with the second application, which was forwarded through Government of Punjab, the petitioner has furnished the two Co-Prisoners Certificates given in his favour by Shri Tara Singh and Shri Bachan Singh, who have not been black- listed by the Government of India. The authorities are expected to adopt a liberal approach while sanctioning the claim under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 (for short the Scheme). It has been so held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gurdial Singhs case (supra), wherein it has been held that for determination of eligibility under the Scheme, the standard of proof is not the same as is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of parties. It has further been held that since the object of the Scheme is to honour, and to mitigate the sufferings of the freedom fighters, a liberal and not a technical approach should be adopted. 9. Apart from the above, in the application submitted by the petitioner as well as the application forwarded by the State of Punjab to the Central Government, the period of detention of the petitioner is more than six months. Although there is a discrepancy in the period of internment of the petitioner, but after so many decades, any person is liable to forget the exact dates of his detention period. It has to be borne in mind that the petitioner is an illiterate person and is also very old. Although there is a discrepancy in the period of internment of the petitioner, but after so many decades, any person is liable to forget the exact dates of his detention period. It has to be borne in mind that the petitioner is an illiterate person and is also very old. Moreover, both the dates which have been given by the petitioner in his applications clearly show that he remained in prison for more than six months. In this view of the matter, it is held that the petitioner did undergo imprisonment of more than six months from 20.10.1942 onwards. 10. In view of the above, I allow the writ petition and set aside the order dated 18.12.2000 passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Annexure P-6). It is ordered that the petitioner be granted pension under the Scheme. Keeping in view his old age and illiteracy, the Union of India is directed to release the entire amount due to the petitioner under the Swatantrata Senani Samman Pension Scheme, 1972, which is also called Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972, without any further delay, and positively on or before March 31, 2005.