Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1127 (MP)

Raghunath Papriker v. Union of India

2011-09-23

SUJOY PAUL

body2011
JUDGMENT : Petitioners is a freedom fighter of more than 93 years ofage as chosen to file this writ petition for grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman (S.S.S.) fromthe Central Government. In fact, the petitioner has visited this Court on thesecond occasion. Earlier the petitioner has fought a long battle in thecorridor of the Court in Writ Petition No. 381/97 (Dr. Raghunath Diagambar Paprikar vs.State of M.P. and another) whichwas decided by this Court on 15.2.2002. In the said matter the stand of theState Government was that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of aforesaid" Samman Nidhi "and he cannot be treated as a freedom fighter. This Court has given a findingin paragraph 11 of the said judgment which reads as under: "Thematerial which was produced is not disputed and that was enough as per therequirement of rule 3 (3) of Rules of 1972 to allow the " Samman Nidhi " to thepetitioner as a freedom fighter." Aftera detailed analysis and discussion, the writ petition was allowed and therejection order was quashed and the State Government was directed to grant" Samman Nidhi " tothe petitioner w.e.f . the order passed on 22.7.1995.The State Government filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 127/02 against theaforesaid judgment of learned Single Judge. The L.P.A. was rejected on21.10.2002. Thereafter, the State Government filed S.LP. (Civil)(C.C. 5794/2003) which was rejected by the Supreme Court on 14.7.2003 (AnnexureP- 6). The Supreme Court ordered as under: "Thespecial leave petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay and onmerits" (emphasis added). Thus,the judgment and finding given by the Court has attained finality on gettingthe stamp of approval from the Apex Court on merits. This petition is filed against the order Annexure P-l dated23.8.2007 whereby petitioner's claim for S.S.S. is rejected by the CentralGovernment by assigning reasons in paragraph 5 of the said order. Shri Ravindra Dixit ,learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a batch of matters this Courthas taken a consistent view that once it is found that the petitioner is afreedom fighter under the scheme of State Government, by no stretch ofimagination the petitioner can be denied the benefit of S.S.S. by the CentralGovernment. He relied on the basic judgment passed by this Court in the case of Parasram Pande vs. Union ofIndia in Writ Petition No. 675/95. He relied on the basic judgment passed by this Court in the case of Parasram Pande vs. Union ofIndia in Writ Petition No. 675/95. The finding of this Court in paragraph 5 ofthe said judgment reads as under: "Thepurpose of the scheme to grant pension to freedom fighters shall be frustratedif the freedom fighters are asked to knock the doors of the Court again andagain on account of unreasoned order. The rejection of the claim of thepetitioner for grant of pension as freedom fighter is on a very technical ground.In fact, once the order granting pension recognizing the petitioner as freedomfighter was passed by the state Government, no other document was required toprove that the petitioner is a freedom fighter. The document, Annexure P/1,itself was sufficient to grant freedom fighter's pension to the petitioner. Therespondent has also not filed the return to the petition to explain theirstand." Thesame view is taken by various benches of this Court in similar maters includingW.P. No. 12/1 ( Nanndeshwar Sahay Varma vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) (Annexure P-10), W.P. No. 8588/2003 ( Hargovind Nayak @ Hargovind Vidyarthi vs. Union of India and others) and also n W.P.No. 788/2005 ( Surendra Nath Gupta vs. Union of India and others). Theaforesaid benches have given consistent opinion that "rules framed byMadhya Pradesh Government for grant of freedom fighter pension are identicalwith that of scheme framed by the Central Government. Once under the samescheme petitioner has been affirmed as freedom fighter by the State Government,there was no reason for Central Government to reject the claim of thepetitioner for grant of pension." Shri Dixit submits that thepetitioners of all the aforesaid matters are getting " Samman Nidhi " from State and Central Government. Apartfrom this, Shri Dixit submits that the rejection of petitioner's claim by P-l is on hyper technicalgrounds. The petitioner has submitted the certificates of two fellow freedomfighters who certified that petitioner was underground for more than six monthswhich fulfills the requirements of the scheme. Apartfrom this, Shri Dixit submits that the rejection of petitioner's claim by P-l is on hyper technicalgrounds. The petitioner has submitted the certificates of two fellow freedomfighters who certified that petitioner was underground for more than six monthswhich fulfills the requirements of the scheme. In any case, Shri Dixit submits that once the order passed by thisCourt on merits has attained finality by the order of Supreme Court dismissingthe S.L.P. on merits, it was no more open for the Central Government to statethat the petitioner is not a freedom fighter and he should not have been giventhe benefit of S.S.S. Percontra, Shri Vijay Sundaram submits that the petitioner is not entitled for the said scheme because he doesnot fulfill the requirement of Annexure R-l, the pension scheme prepared by theCentral Government. He further submits that correct facts were not brought tothe notice of this Court in the earlier round of litigation and therefore, thisCourt passed the aforesaid order. He submits that if correct facts would havebeen brought to the notice of this Court, the aforesaid judgment would not havebeen passed. He further submits that the petitioner is not entitled for theclaims of S.S.S. Ihave heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ThisCourt after examining the material on record has shown its satisfaction thatpetitioner is a freedom fighter. Thereafter, this Court directed the StateGovernment to pay the " Samman Nidhi " to the petitioner. This finding of learnedSingle Judge unsuccessfully challenged by the State Government before theDivision Bench of this Court and then before the Supreme Court. Once thefinding is recorded by this Court and affirmed by Supreme Court, it is no moreopen to say that the aforesaid order is incorrect or the adequate material wasnot produced before this Court. It is not in dispute that in batches of theorder passed this Court in earlier round of litigation, the State government hasstarted granting S.S.S. to the petitioner and it is only the Central Governmentwho has not chosen to extend this benefit to the petitioner certain technicalground mentioned in paragraphs of the impugned order (Annexure P-l). It is not in dispute that in batches of theorder passed this Court in earlier round of litigation, the State government hasstarted granting S.S.S. to the petitioner and it is only the Central Governmentwho has not chosen to extend this benefit to the petitioner certain technicalground mentioned in paragraphs of the impugned order (Annexure P-l). Thus,various benches of this Court have taken a consistent view that the policy ofState Government and Central Government are almost identical and once a personis declared freedom fighter by the State Government, it is no more open to theCentral Government to say that the same person is not a freedom fighter in theeyes of Central Government. Inthis view of the matter, no further scrutiny is required, and I deem it properto follow the consistent view taken by this Court treating such persons asfreedom fighters even for the purpose of Central Government scheme.Accordingly, considering the fact that petitioner's claim as freedom fighter isestablished on merits till Supreme Court, no further microscopic scrutiny ofhair splitting was necessary for the Central Government and the impugned orderis passed on hyper technical grounds. The result is inescapable. Annexure P-lcannot sustain the judicial scrutiny. Inthe result, Annexure P-l is quashed and set aside. The Union of India isdirected to grant " Samman Nidhi "to the petitioner from the date of his entitlement. This Court is conscious ofthis fact that petitioner when field this petitioner was of 93 years of age.Considering the aforesaid, the respondents-Union of India is directed to ensure the payment of " Samman Nidhi " to the petitioner strictly within 30 days. Thepetitioner shall also get Rs . 10,000/- as cost ofthis litigation. The petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions.