Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1226 (HP)

UNION OF INDIA v. BRIJ LAL

2009-12-07

R.B.MISRA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. This letters patent appeal has been preferred against the judgment of learned Single Judge rendered in CWP No. 263 of 1999 passed on 5.1.2004. The material facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondent Shri Brij Lal has submitted an application for the grant of Freedom Fighter’s Pension. He was informed on 17.2.1998 by the appellant to apply for Freedom Fighter’s pension on the prescribed proforma. He submitted the application on 17.3.1998 along with the Certificates issued in his favour by the other Freedom Fighters, who had been granted Freedom Fighters’ Pension by the Union of India and who had also undergone two years imprisonment. Respondent Brij Lal approached this Court by way of CWP No. 263 of 1999 seeking a direction to the Union of India to grant him Freedom Fighter’s pension. The case was contested by the appellant-Union of India. It was primarily contended by the appellant that the petitioner has failed to substantiate that he had remained under ground. 2. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 5.1.2004. 3. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has vehemently argued that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable. According to him, the case of respondent No.1 was required to be recommended by the State Government. He lastly contended that the petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim that he had remained under ground. 4. Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5.1.2004. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. Petitioner has submitted an application on 17.3.1998. The petitioner has annexed copies of the Certificates issued by the freedom fighters, who have undergone two years imprisonment, namely, Shri Rattan Singh, late Pt. Padam Dev, Shri Dhirmal and Thakur Keshav Ram. This fact was not denied by the appellant in -3reply to the writ petition. These freedom fighters were also granted the pension by the Government of India. 7. Learned Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to the reply filed by the State Government. It is clearly averred in the reply filed by respondent No.2 that initially the case of the petitioner was not recommended. These freedom fighters were also granted the pension by the Government of India. 7. Learned Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to the reply filed by the State Government. It is clearly averred in the reply filed by respondent No.2 that initially the case of the petitioner was not recommended. However, subsequently when respondent No.1 applied for grant of Samman pension under the Scheme “Swatantrata Sanik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980” on 17.3.1988 to the Union of India with a copy to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, H.P., the petitioner was granted “Samman Pension” by the State Government vide decision dated 21.5.1996. In other words, the petitioner was recognized as freedom fighter. Since the petitioner has been declared freedom fighter by the State Government and he has annexed the Certificates of the Freedom Fighters including Ex-MP, the learned Single Judge has come to the right conclusion that the decision of the appellant-Union of India not to grant pension to the petitioner was without authority of law. We are in respectful agreement with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 8. Accordingly, there is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. The appellant-Union of India is directed to release the pension to the petitioner as directed by the learned Single Judge in judgment dated 5.1.2004 within a period of two months from today.