Amar Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 22.02.2014 passed by respondent No.1 whereby rejecting the claim of

the petitioner for granting the status of freedom fighter.

The petitioner has filed an application dated 21.09.2012 before the respondent No.1 for including his name in the list of freedom fighters. The

application was filed in due form alongwith the relevant documents. The application was forwarded by the respondent No.1 to respondent No.2

for scrutinising the petitioner''s case to be included in the list of freedom fighter and to extend him the benefit as per the rules framed by the State

Government for the said purpose. Even after the period of 2 years, the application preferred by the petitioner has not been decided by the

respondents. In the meantime, the petitioner came to know that in the application form submitted by him, due to inadvertence it has been

mentioned Goa Mukti Sangram was held in the year 1957 whereas it was held in the year 1955. The petitioner immediately made a request to the

respondent No.1 vide letter dated 18.02.2014 to read the year 1957 as 1955 in entire application along with the affidavit. The respondent No.1

thereafter vide order dated 22.02.2014 rejected the application submitted by the petitioner on the ground that as per application submitted by the

petitioner he participated in Goa Mukti Sangram but the same concluded on 15 th August, 1955. In the impugned order, it has been observed that

the benefit of honorary pension under Rule 3(4) is granted to the persons, who took part in the above mentioned moment at Goa in the year 1955.

It has also been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any document to show that he has participated in the Goa Mukti Sangram

and also that he has remained under ground in the freedom movement of 1942.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 22.02.2014, by which the respondent No.1 has rejected the application

submitted by the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that the application was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the Goa

Mukti Sangram was held in the year 1955 while in the application it has been stated in the year 1957. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

when the petitioner came to know about the said bonafide mistake, he immediately submitted an application for rectifying the said mistake along

with an affidavit, however, the affidavit as well as the request made by the petitioner was not considered by the respondents while rejecting the

application submitted by the petitioner. It is further submitted that along with the application, the petitioner has filed number of documents and

photographs to show that the petitioner played instrumental role in Goa Mukti Sangram and further relied on the Rules, which is framed by the

State Government known as Madhya Pradesh Swatantra Sangram Sainik Sammannidhi Rules, 1972 particularly Rule 2(b)(1), Rule 2(b)(6), Rule

2(b)(8) and Rule 2(b)(1) clarification No.3 and 4. On the basis of this rules, it is submitted that the petitioner has complied with the provisions of

this rule and therefore, the respondents have committed error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for freedom fighter. In support

of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision passed by the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari and

others Vs. Union of India and Others, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2, Gurdial Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, (2001) 8 SCC 8 and on the order

passed by Madra High Court in the case of V. Gandhi Vs. The Secretary to the Government, Tamil Nadu Public (Political Pension-III) passed in

W.P. No.18262/2017 decided on 17.01.2018. Relying on these judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents should

not have rejected the application submitted by the petitioner on hypertechnical ground. It is the honor to be given to the freedom fighters, who have

participated in the freedom movement.

The respondents have not filed any reply to the said writ petition inspite of granting number of opportunities to file the same. The petitioner is

aged about 86 years, therefore, the petition has been heard in absence of reply filed by the respondents. The Government Advocate who appears

on behalf of respondents/State orally opposes the contents of writ petition. It is submitted that as the petitioner has wrongly mentioned Goa Mukti

Sangram of 1957 inspite of the year 1955, therefore, the application has rightly been rejected. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to

file any relevant documents that he has participated in the said sangram therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.1 is just and proper and

the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner, who has participated in Goa Mukti Sangram has preferred the

application on 29.01.2012 before the respondent No.1 for including his name in the list of freedom fighters. The application was preferred in a

prescribed form alongwith the requisite documents. The application was forwarded by the respondent No.1 to the respondent No.2 for scrutinising

the case of the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner has came know that due to inadvertence the year of Goa Mukti Sangram has been

mentioned as 1957 instead of 1955, he therefore, immediately wrote a letter dated 18.02.2014 to the respondent No.1 along with an affidavit to

correct the said typographical error. However, inspite of correcting the mistake, the respondent No.1 vide its order dated 22.02.2014 rejected the

application preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has given wrong information with regard to the year of Goa Mukti Sangram

in the application and the petitioner has not filed any relevant documents to show that he has participated in the Sangram in the year 1955. The

order dated 22.02.2014 passed by the respondent No.1 is illegal as while rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner has adopted

hypertechnical approach. In the instant case, before rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner on the said ground, the petitioner has

already submitted a letter along with an application for correcting the said typographical error. However, inspite of correcting the said mistake, the

respondent has dismissed the application on the said ground.

Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari (supra) in paragraphs No.7, and 9 has held, the relevant extract of the same is

produced as under :

What is more, if the scheme has been introduced with the genuine desire to assist and honour those who had given the best part of their life for the

country, it ill behoves the Government to raise pleas of limitation against such claims. Infact, the Government if it is possible for them to do so,

should find out the freedom fighters and their dependants and approach them with the pension instead of requiring them to make application for the

same. That would be true spirit of working out such schemes. (Para No.7)

It is unreasonable to expect that the freedom fighters and their dependants, would be readily in possession of the required documents."" The

prescription of a rigid time limit for the proof of the entitlement in the nature of very things is demeaning to the object of the scheme. (Para No.8)

The object was to honour and where it was necessary, also to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country in the hour of

its need."" (Para. No.9).

In the case of Gurdial Singh (supra), the relevant extract of paragraphs No.6, 7 and 8 is produced as under :

The scheme was introduced with the object of providing grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families and to the families of martyrs.

It has to be kept in mind that millions of masses of this country had participated in the freedom struggle without any expectation of grant of any

scheme at the relevant time. It has also to be kept in mind that in the partition of the country most of the citizen who suffered imprisonment were

handicapped to get the relevant record from the jails where they had suffered imprisonment. The problem of getting the record from a foreign

country is very cumbersome and expensive. Keeping in mind the objects of the scheme, the authorities concerned are required that in appreciating

the scheme for the benefit of freedom fighters a rational and not a technical approach is required to be adopted. It has also to be kept in mind that

the claimants of the scheme are supposed to be such persons who had given the best part of their life for the country. (Paragraph No.6)

The standard of proof required in such cases is not standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon rival contentions or

evidence of the parties. As the object of the scheme is to honour and mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country, a

liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking pension under the

scheme. It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by the scheme had suffered for the country half a century back and had

not expected to be rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them. Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the

bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the

scheme. The case of claimants under the scheme is required to be determined on the basis of probabilities and not on the touchstone of beyond

reasonable doubt. Once on the basis of evidence it is probabilised that the claimant had suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country and

during the freedom struggle, a presumption is to be drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence.

(Paragraph No.7).

We have noticed with disgust that the respondents authorities have adopted a hypertechical approach while dealing with the case of a freedom

fighter and ignored the basic principles/objectives of the scheme intended to give the benefit to the sufferers of the freedom movement. The

contradiction and discrepancies, as noticed hereinabove cannot be held to be material which could be made the basis of depriving the appellant of

his right to get the pension. The case of the appellant has been disposed of by ignoring the mandate of law and the scheme. The impugned order

also appears to have been passed with a biased and closed mind, completely ignoring the verdict of this court in Mukundlal Bhandari case.

(Paragraph No.8)

In the case of V. Gandhi (supra), the relevant extract of paragraphs No.6, 8, 9 and 10 is produced as under :

Expect doing so mechanically these have done nothing effectively or positively to consider petitioners request for freedom fighters pension, even

though it was brought to their knowledge that there is an urgent need of extending such monetary support, which is certainly not a charity, but

conferment of an honour on such selfless freedom fighter. Unfortunately these respondents failed to note that but for such selfless contribution and

participation in the freedom struggle by the persons like the petitioner, we would have not been in the present position to deal with this matter like

this. It is a sorry state of affair and saddening factor to note that a person, who fought for freedom of this country is again driven to fight now, even

after freedom, unfortunately top get some financial assistance for his sustenance by way of such pension. In my considered view persons like the

petitioner, who fought for freedom, should have been conferred with such due honour and dignity by extending the invitation to them and not by

waiting for them to make their application. (Paragraph No.6)

I am totally unable to either comprehend myself or conceive the above reasoning of the respondents for rejecting the claim of the petitioner that

too, especially when the same is not going to the root of the matter. When the factual aspect of the matter viz., the factum of participation of the

petitioner in the freedom struggle, is vouched by a coprisoner, who issued a certificate and by the great personality Col. Lakshmi Sahgal, who

issued the personal knowledge certificate as discussed supra, there cannot be even a little doubt in the mind of the respondents about the bonafide

of the petitioner. The respondents admitted in the counter affidavit about the issuance of those two certificates and the receipt of the same as well.

Despite the availability of those two overwhelming evidence, it is very unfortunate, that the respondents have chosen to mechanically reject the

claim of the petitioner with irrelevant an immaterial reason which only shows that they somehow wanted to wash off their hands and relieve

themselves of their liability. (Paragraph No.8)

It is very saddening to note that these respondents have chosen to rely on the irrelevant material to deny the claim of the petitioner rather than

accepting the genuine certificates proving the petitioners participation in the freedom struggle, especially when these respondents did not dispute the

genuineness of such certificates. (Paragraph No.9)

I can only say to the writ petitioner ''sorry sir, you are made to suffer at the hands of our people too, as unfortunately, this how the bureaucratic

dogmatism with wooden approach works, at times in the country, for which you fought to get freedom. (Paragraph No.10)

In light of these decisions, the Court has repeatedly issued directions to the authorities to decide the applications submitted by the freedom

fighters for sanction of the pension of its own merits without going into technicalities. It has further been observed by the Court, the standard of

proof required in such cases is not the standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon by the rival contentions and

evidence of the parties. As the object of the scheme is to honour and mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country, a

liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking pension under the

scheme. In the present case also as the respondents have rejected the claim on hypertechnical ground, I allow the writ petition and the impugned

order dated 22.02.2014 is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner after taking

into consideration the application as well as the affidavit dated 18.02.2014 submitted by the petitioner within a period of 45 days'' from the date of

receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.