Bansi Ram vs Union of India (UOI) and Another

Surinder Singh, J.

1.The Petitioner (74 years of age) filed the instant petition in January, 2008 claiming himself to be a participant in "Praja Mandal Movement" for the merger of erstwhile Princely State of Bilaspur that with effect from 1946 to 1948 he remained underground to avoid the oral warrant of arrest of the then Ruler of Bilaspur a Princely State which merged into Union of India on 12.10.1948.

In the year 1972, Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme was formulated, which in the year 1980 was renamed as "Swatantarta Sainani Samman Pension Scheme" and was amended from time to time.

In the year 1985, the State of Himachal Pradesh also formulated "HP Swatantarta Sainani Samman Rashi Yojna Scheme".

According to the Petitioner, his participation in the freedom struggle was based on his values, he did not apply immediately for the pension under the Schemes'' aforesaid, but with the passage of time he felt financial constraints, his health also deteriorated and forced to seek the assistance from theRespondents. Thus, he applied to theRespondents on 15.6.2005 for the grant of freedom fighter pension under the Central as well as State Scheme vide Annexures PA and PB duly supported by the certificates of the freedom fighters, namely Shri Devi Ram, resident of Bilaspur, who was getting freedom fighter pension vide PPO No. 9503259 and Shri Tulsi Ram Mehta, freedom-fighter resident of village Kufta Mour, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmour PPO No. 1580/F.F. (Annexures PC and PD, respectively), but his claim was rejected for want of documentary proof. Thereafter he wrote to theRespondents vide Annexures PE and PF, respectively, clarifying the position in view of the judgments passed by the Courts, but of no avail. Thus, the Petitioner sought the relief that he be declared as freedom fighter entitling him to receive the benefit under both the Schemes of the Centre and the State as well and for the grant of pension with interest from the date of his applications.

The Respondents contested the claim of the Petitioner and filed separate replies.Respondent No. 1-Union of India in their reply submitted that they neither received the case of the Petitioner nor any representation for pension. They also disputed the alleged certificates of Shri Devi Ram and Shri Tulsi Ram Mehta being totally incorrect, whereasRespondent No. 2-State in their reply submitted that the case of the Petitioner was received through Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur in the year 2006. The Deputy Commissioner aforesaid reported that there was no record about the participation of the Petitioner in "Praja Mandal Movement", thus not eligible for the grant of pension. Moreover, the age of the Petitioner was about 13 years at the time of "Praja Mandal Movement" in Bilaspur and the claim of the Petitioner was also placed before the sub-Committee constituted under the HP Freedom Fighter''s Welfare board in its 51st meeting held on 18.5.2006. The Committee considered his case. As the Petitioner submitted his claim on the basis of certificates of other freedom fighters, who themselves have been declared as freedom fighters on the basis of certificates issued by other freedom fighters. Therefore, his application was rejected and the Petitioner was accordingly informed. The Petitioner made the request in writing on 23.2.2007 to reconsider his case on humanitarian grounds under the Scheme. It was again placed before the HP Freedom Fighters Welfare Board in its 52nd meeting held on 20.7.2007. The Committee carefully examined the record of the Petitioner''s case and keeping in view the Deputy Commissioner''s report, it was again rejected. Hence this petition.

Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, learned Counsel for the Petitioner brought to my notice the relevant provisions of the Freedom Fighters Scheme for the grant of financial assistance framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the Freedom Fighters of Himachal Pradesh.

The eligible persons who sought the financial assistance under the Scheme are required to furnish the documents shown against each category detailed in para 5 of the said Scheme.

The case of the Petitioner is that he remained underground with effect from 1946 to 1948. Admittedly, at that time he was aged about 13 years. Vide para 5 (B) of the Scheme the applicant is required to furnish documents in respect of such cases which consist of the documentary evidence by way of Court/Government order, where such documentary evidence is not available, a certificate from a Freedom Fighter, who is getting Freedom Fighters'' Pension from the Central Government specifying the period the applicant remained underground alongwith an affidavit from the applicant which may be accepted subject to the satisfaction of the Government. Thus ultimate satisfaction is of the State Government based upon the genuineness of the material placed before it.

In the instant case, the true copy of the certificate of Shri Devi Ram of Tehsil Ghumarwin District Bilaspur (Annexure PC), has been placed on record alongwith the certificate of Shri Tulsi Ram Mehta (Annexure PD), who are holders of Freedom Fighters'' Pension. Shri Tulsi Ram Mehta is stated to have certified that police under the verbal orders issued by the then ruler of Bilaspur, the Petitioner was forced to remain underground and carry on with his work. During this period, he is stated to have visited District Sirmour, erstwhile Princely State and was involved in the activities of ''Praja Mandal'' and he knew him since then that he remained underground for six months.

As a matter of fact, the certificate given by Shri Tulsi Ram Mehta requires to be seen in the light that he was an activist of ''Pajhota Andolan'' which took place in the year 1942 in District Sirmour. On 11.6.1943 he got bullet injury on his leg from the forces of the ruler of Sirmour having agitated and was a part of the mob. As per Revised Edition 2010, of the "Himachal Pradesh Ke Swatantarta Sainani" published by the Art and Language Department of the State Government, at page 485 it is referred that Shri Tulsi Ram Mehta is resident of Kuffar Mound not of Kufta Mor, as contended by the Petitioner, was sentenced to 4 years 9 months imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default thereof to further undergo imprisonment for six months. Since he happens to be in the jail till the year 1948, therefore, prima facie there appears to be no occasion for the Petitioner to come in contact with Shri Tulsi Ram Mehta.

Since the State Government did not examine the contentions raised by the Petitioner in view of the certificates furnished independently with respect to available record with them but only perused the report of the Deputy Commissioner prepared on oral evidence despite the fact the record with respect to Shri Tulsi Ram is available with the Government. This is not the requirement of the Scheme, but it has to examine the contentions raised by the Petitioner to its satisfaction by the State Government. The State Government is required to take its independent decision in the matter to verify the correctness of the contentions raised by the Petitioner for getting the pension in the context of the affidavit produced by him which has not been done. Therefore,Respondent No. 2-State Government is hereby directed to investigate/enquire into the contentions raised by the Petitioner and consider his case for its eligibility in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari and others Vs. Union of India and others, Sahaj Ram v. Union of India and Anr. CWP No. 1100 of 1995, decided by this Court on 21.9.1995 and para 5-B of the Scheme for the grant of financial assistance of the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the Freedom Fighters of Himachal Pradesh as amended from time to time within a period of four months. In case the State Government finds the genuineness of the claim of the Petitioner, they should immediately sanction the financial benefits under the Scheme and recommend the case of the Petitioner toRespondent No. 1-Union of India for the grant of financial assistance under the "Swantantarta Sainani Samman Pension Scheme, 1980".

The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner had already applied to the Central Government with the requisite certificates, the acknowledgements thereof are stated to be Annexures PA and PB, is of no avail in absence of the proof of the fact that he had infact submitted the application for the grant of pension, as per the requirement of the Scheme. Needless to say if the certificates so submitted are found to be fake on enquiry, the appropriate action as per law be initiated against the claimant and other persons involved therein.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.