Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 323 (UTT)

MUNNI DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA

2021-06-21

MANOJ K.TIWARI

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner is widow of Mangal Singh Rawat. According to petitioner, her husband had participated in the Freedom Struggle against the British; but, he was denied the benefits available to Freedom Fighters, including pension. 2. In Para No. 5 of the Writ Petition, it is stated that petitioner's husband had applied for pension admissible to Freedom Fighters; but, his claim was rejected by the authorities and subsequently on 13.02.2003, petitioner's husband passed away. 3. After death of her husband, petitioner staked claim for family pension, which is available to dependents of Freedom Fighters. She also filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2808 of 2013, which was decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 05.10.2017. Relevant extract of the said order is reproduced below:- “Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure No.3 dated 17.12.1987 and 16.05.2007 are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in view of the material already supplied by her seeking pension under Swantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, within three months from today." 4. Pursuant to the order of this Court, petitioner's claim for family pension was re-considered by the Competent Authority in the State Government as well as the Central Government. The Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Uttarakhand has rejected petitioner's claim vide order dated 12.01.2018. The Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs has also rejected petitioner's claim for family pension vide order dated 22.02.2018. Both these orders are under challenge in the present writ petition. 5. This writ petition was filed on 23.05.2018 and came up for preliminary hearing before a Coordinate Bench on 30.05.2018. On the said date, petitioner was granted three weeks' time to file amendment application disclosing the date of birth of petitioner's husband and other relevant facts. No amendment application has been filed by the petitioner, therefore, the information regarding date of birth of petitioner's husband is lacking. 6. The impugned orders, whereby petitioner's claim for family pension has been rejected, are on record as Annexure Nos. 6 & 7 to the writ petition. 7. No amendment application has been filed by the petitioner, therefore, the information regarding date of birth of petitioner's husband is lacking. 6. The impugned orders, whereby petitioner's claim for family pension has been rejected, are on record as Annexure Nos. 6 & 7 to the writ petition. 7. Perusal of the order dated 12.01.2018 passed by State Government reveals that Freedom Fighters Pension can be granted to persons who fulfil the conditions prescribed in the statutory Rules e.g. (i) minimum sentence of two months for participating in the Freedom Struggle, (ii) incarceration for minimum three months as an under trial prisoner, (iii) caning with minimum 10 hits, (iv) sustaining fire-arm injury etc. 8. Respondent no. 2 has considered all relevant aspects and has come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that petitioner's husband actually participated in the Freedom Struggle. He has held that certificates issued by two Freedom Fighters in support of petitioner's claim are sketchy and they do not disclose that the persons issuing such certificates were incarcerated with the husband of the petitioner. 9. According to own showing of the petitioner, her husband was never arrested; but, he remained underground for six months, however, no material was produced before the Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Uttarakhand in support of this claim. Before this Court also, no material has been brought on record to show that petitioner's husband remained underground due to fear of reprisal from the police authorities for his participation in the Freedom Struggle. Thus, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the State Government. 10. Likewise, the Competent Authority in the Central Government has also considered and discussed all relevant aspects in great detail for arriving at the conclusion that petitioner does not meet the eligibility criteria of ‘Swatantrata Sainik Samman Yojna'. It has been held that the claimed jail sufferings of late husband of the petitioner while participating in the Indian Freedom Movement, is not supported by any primary or secondary evidence. It has further been held that duration and time of suffering stated in co-prisoners' certificates is in variance with the period claimed by petitioner regarding her husband. 11. The State Government as well as the Central Government have framed Rules for grant of pension to the Freedom Fighters. It has further been held that duration and time of suffering stated in co-prisoners' certificates is in variance with the period claimed by petitioner regarding her husband. 11. The State Government as well as the Central Government have framed Rules for grant of pension to the Freedom Fighters. The conditions of eligibility for grant of pension have been set-out in the said Rules and anyone who does not fulfil the eligibility criteria, as provided in the Rules, cannot claim pension available to Freedom Fighters. In the impugned orders, definite findings have been recorded that petitioner's husband was not meeting the eligibility criteria for grant of pension, therefore, his dependents are also not entitled to family pension. 12. Whether petitioner's husband participated in the Freedom Struggle or not is basically a question of fact. In the absence of any cogent evidence in support of petitioner's claim, no interference with the impugned orders would be warranted. 13. In such view of the matter, this Court declines to interfere in the matter. 14. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.