Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 98 (HP)

PREM CHAND v. UNION OF INDIA

2004-05-17

R.L.KHURANA

body2004
JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J,—The petitioner, Prem Chand, claiming himself to be a freedom fighter, has approached this Court by virtue of the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs : (a) the petitioner be declared to be a freedom fighter and respondents No.1 and 2 be directed to pay the freedom fighters pension to him from the date of his application along with interest at the rate of 12 per centum per annum on the arrears; (b) order dated 29.7.1998 (Annexure PH) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for pension may be set aside and quashed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as are set out in the petition, are these. The petitioner participated in the Praja Mandal Movement for the merger of the then Princely States in the Indian Union. He was also an active worker of such movement during 1946-47. The then Ruler of Baghat State made all efforts to suppress the movement by imprisoning and/or ordering externment/internment of the members of the movement. The petitioner being an active member of the movement also earned displeasure of the then Ruler of Baghat State. Warrants for his arrest were issued as a result of which he had to remain underground from October 1946 to October 1947, though he continued his political activities. 3. Respondent No.1, in the year 1972 promulgated a Scheme known as Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972, which was liberalised by the Scheme of 1980 (Annexure R1) (for short : Central Scheme). The Scheme provided for pension to the freedom fighters including those who remained underground for a period of more than six months. 4. The petitioner, who claims to have remained underground during the period October 1946 to October 1947, applied to the respondent No.1 on 31.1.1996 through respondent No.2. The application so made was duly supported by the certificates of three other freedom fighters, namely, S/Shri Thakur Dass Niddar, Padam Singh and Narotam Dutt Shastri. 5. A scheme was also promulgated by the respondent No.2 with regard to the grant of freedom fighters pension in the year 1985 known as Himachal Pradesh Swatantarta Senani Samman Yojna (for short : the State Scheme). The petitioner also applied to respondent No. 2 for the grant of pension to him. 5. A scheme was also promulgated by the respondent No.2 with regard to the grant of freedom fighters pension in the year 1985 known as Himachal Pradesh Swatantarta Senani Samman Yojna (for short : the State Scheme). The petitioner also applied to respondent No. 2 for the grant of pension to him. Respondent No.2 after declaring the petitioner to be a freedom fighter on 23.8.1995 granted pension at the rate of Rs. 400 per month to the petitioner with effect from 17.6.1995 under the State Scheme. 6. The claim as to pension made by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 under the Central Scheme was, however, rejected by respondent No.1 on 29.7.1998 (Annexure PH). Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 7. Respondent No.1 in its reply has averred that on the basis of verification carried out through the agencies of the State Government, the petitioner was not found to be a freedom fighter within the meaning of the Central Scheme and as such his claim was rightly rejected. 8. Respondent No, 2 admitted that the petitioner has been granted the freedom fighters pension under the State Scheme. It was pleaded that his case for grant of pension under the Central Scheme after due verification was forwarded to respondent No.1, who has rejected the same vide Annexure PH. 9. The fact that the petitioner has been recognised as a freedom fighter and granted pension under the State Scheme has no bearing on the question of the petitioner becoming a freedom fighter under the Central Scheme. This court in CWP No. 359 of 1999, Baldev Chand v. Union of India and another, decided on 9.1.2004 has held as under :— "Suffice to say that the mere fact that the petitioner has been recognised by the State Government as a Freedom Fighter and granted Freedom Fighters Pension under the Scheme formulated by it would not ipso facto mean that the petitioner would also be deemed to be a Freedom Fighter within the meaning of Scheme of 1980 formulated by respondent No.1. The eligibility criteria laid down in two Schemes for the grant of Freedom Fighters Pension is quite different. There is also nothing on the record to show that on what basis the petitioner was recognised as a Freedom Fighter by respondent No.2 under the Scheme formulated by it in the year 1985. The eligibility criteria laid down in two Schemes for the grant of Freedom Fighters Pension is quite different. There is also nothing on the record to show that on what basis the petitioner was recognised as a Freedom Fighter by respondent No.2 under the Scheme formulated by it in the year 1985. Therefore, no benefit can be drawn by the petitioner from the fact that since he has been declared to be a Freedom Fighter by the State Government, he would be entitled to Freedom Fighters Pension under the Scheme of 1980 formulated by respondent No.1 also." 10. The petitioner is claiming pension under the Central Scheme on the ground that he had to remain underground due to his participation in the Praja Mandal Movement during the period October, 1946 to October, 1947. 11. Under Para 2.3 of the Central Scheme (Annexure R1) a person is entitled to freedom fighters pension, if he, on account of his participation in freedom struggle had remained underground for more than six months provided he was: (a) a proclaimed offender; (b) one on whom an award for arrest was announced; or (c) one for whose detention, order was issued but not served. 11. The explanation to the para provides that voluntary underground suffering or self exile suffering for party work under the command of the party leaders, would not be covered as eligible sufferings for pension under the Central Scheme. 12. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner does not fall either under clause (a) or clause (b) above. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the case falls under clause (c) above. 13. Vide para 2.3 of the Central Scheme, the claim of underground suffering is to be considered on furnishing of the following evidence:— "(a) Documentary evidence by way of Courts/Governments orders proclaiming the applicant as an absconder, announcing an award on his head or for his arrest or ordering his detention. 13. Vide para 2.3 of the Central Scheme, the claim of underground suffering is to be considered on furnishing of the following evidence:— "(a) Documentary evidence by way of Courts/Governments orders proclaiming the applicant as an absconder, announcing an award on his head or for his arrest or ordering his detention. (b) In case records of the relevant period are not available, secondary evidences in the form of a Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) from a prominent freedom fighter who has proven jail suffering of a minimum two years and who happened to be from the same administrative unit could be considered provided the State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned, after due verification of the claim and its genuineness, certifies that documentary evidences from the official records in support of the claimed sufferings were not available." 14. No record as to the Courts or Governments order for the arrest or detention of the petitioner has been produced on the averments that such record is not available. Therefore, the petitioner was required to produce secondary evidence in the form of a Personal Knowledge Certificate from a prominent freedom fighter, who has proven jail sufferings of a minimum two years and who is from the same administrative unit. 15. In the present case, as stated above, the petitioner had annexed three certificates from three different freedom fighters, namely, S/Shri Thakur Dass Niddar, Padam Singh and Narottam Dutt Shastri. 16. In so far as Shri Narottam Dutt Shastri is concerned, who has given the certificate, Annexure PE, he belongs to the then Princely State of Bilaspur, while the petitioner belongs to the then Princely State of Baghat. Therefore, the freedom fighter issuing the certificate Annexure PE, can not be said to be belonging to the same administrative unit. Shri Narottam Dutt Shastri and the petitioner were operating in two different Princely States. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the certificate, Annexure PE. 17. Though the certificates, Annexures PC and PD, are shown to have been issued by the freedom fighters belonging to the same administrative unit as that of the petitioner, no reliance can be placed on them for the reasons, firstly, there is no proof that these two freedom fighters, that is, S/Shri Thakur Dass Niddar and Padam Singh had themselves suffered jail for a minimum period of two years. Secondly, there is nothing in the certificates to the effect that the petitioner had to go underground on account of some order of arrest or detention issued against him. The petitioner, thus, failed to establish that he is a freedom fighter within the meaning of the Central Scheme. His claim, therefore, was rightly rejected by the respondent No.1. Resultantly, the present petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs.