Sharam Singh vs U.O.I. and Others

Ritu Bahri, J.—The petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and declaring the action of respondent No. 1 and 2 in suspending the freedom fighter pension granted to the petitioner and to restore the pension, vide letter dated 10.10.1995, pursuant to a direction given by this Court on 07.04.1993 (P-8). The petitioner is a freedom fighter and took part in inqlabi Satyagrah and suffered imprisonment in Central Jail, Lahore from 14.02.1941 to 13.08.1942 and was awarded a Tamra Patra (P-1). The petitioner was also awarded Samman Patra (P-2) on 11.02.1995.

Government of India formulated a scheme known as Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme, 1972 for the grant of Freedom Figher Pension to those Freedom Fighters who had undergone imprisonment for the period of 03 months. The period of imprisonment required for the sanction of Freedom Fighter Pension was subsequently increased or decreased as per instructions of Government of India issued from time to time. Under the said scheme, some of the genuine Freedom Fighters who had undergone jail sufferings for the cause of the country were entitled to get doles of pension merely on the production of jail certificates issued by the competent authority. Some of the genuine freedom fighters could not get the freedom fighter pension because of the reason that they could not produce the jail certificates issued by the competent authority. Government of India thus decided to change the modality and policy by not insisting upon the production of jail extracts in proof of jail sufferings. Government of India ordered the concerned department to accept the co-prisoner certificate issued by legislatures and Parliamentarian or co-prisoner who had been granted Freedom Fighter Pension by the Government of India.

The Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 was modified and renamed as "Swantantarata Sainik Saman" Pension Scheme-1980 for the grant of Freedom Fighter Pension to the Freedom Fighters who had undergone jail sufferings for the cause of the Country. The scheme was introduced w.e.f. 15.08.1981 and was made applicable w.e.f. 01.08.1980. The benefit of the pension scheme was extended to all freedom fighters as a token of Sam-man to all of them. Under this scheme, a freedom fighter is a person who has suffered minimum imprisonment of 06 months in the main land jails before independence. Ex I.N.A. personnel were also eligible if the imprisonment/suffering by them was outside India. The period of actual imprisonment for eligibility for grant of pension was reduced to 03 months in case of Women, SC/ST Freedom Fighters w.e.f. 01.08.1980.

The petitioner who had undergone more than 06 months imprisonment moved an application on the prescribed forms and sent the same to the State Government mentioning therein that he had undergone imprisonment in the "Inqlabi Satyagrah" and remained in the Central, Lahore on account of participation in connection with the freedom struggle of the country. This form was received in duplicate by the State Government. The petitioner also supplied co-prisoner certificate of Inder Singh and Bahal Singh. The application of the petitioner along with his affidavit and certificate of co-prisoners were duly got verified by respondent No. 2 through D.C. Patiala who got spot enquiry conducted and reported to respondent No. 2 that petitioner was a genuine Freedom Fighter. The case of the petitioner was forwarded by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 for sanction of Freedom Fighter Pension. The Freedom Fighter Pension was released in favour of the petitioner on 09.09.1988 (P-3) and conveyed the same to respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 2 also sanctioned financial assistance/pension in favour of the petitioner vide its letter dated 31.07.1989 (P-4) and sanction was conveyed to respondent No. 5. A pension payment order N. 13384/FF/Centre was also issued by respondent No. 1 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner received pension for about 02 years, which was later on suspended, vide letter dated 26.03.1990, which was conveyed to respondent No. 3 but not to the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 addressed a letter dated 16.04.1990 to respondent No. 4 (P-5) ordering suspension of pension in favour of the petitioner with immediate effect. A letter dated 16.04.1990 (Annexure P-5) was also endorsed to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 thereafter suspended financial assistance in favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 19.06.1990 (P-6) without any notice to the petitioner. Various representations were submitted by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 as to why the pension granted to him was suspended but no reply was given (P-7). Finally, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 12618 of 1992 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner for restoration of pension. Vide order dated 7.4.1993, the petition was disposed of on the basis of undertaking given by counsel for respondent No. 1 that the representation of the petitioner, shall be decided within a period of six months. Vide letter dated 02.11.1995 (P-9), the petitioner came to know that his pension had been restored vide letter No. 127/P/3498/99 dated 10.10.1995 However, the pension of the petitioner has not been restored so far. The petitioner made numerous representations to implement order dated 10.10.1995 Finally, vide letter dated 19.10.2011 the petitioner was informed by respondent No. 4 that respondent N. 1 had stopped his pension, vide letter dated 10.10.1995 and the petitioner was advised to take up the matter for restoration of pension with the Government of India through proper channel (P-14/T). Thereafter, the petitioner gave representation dated 29.08.2011 to various higher authorities including the Prime Minister of India.

On notice, a reply has been filed by respondent No. 2 dated 09.05.2012 wherein it has been stated that respondent No. 2 recommended the case of the petitioner to Government of India vide letter dated 03.12.1987, who vide letter dated 26.03.1990 suspended the Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension of the petitioner. As per Punjab Government Policy instructions vide letter dated 02.12.2004 (R-1/T), it has been decided that in the case wherein the documents/co-prisoner certificates submitted by the applicant are recommended by the Government of Punjab to Government of India after duly verification by the concerned Deputy Commissioner for the grant of freedom fighter pension but on account of such documents not acceptable by Government of India and the case of the applicant is rejected, the Punjab Freedom Fighter Pension will be stopped in that case. The Punjab Swatantrata Sainik Saman Pension of the petitioner was suspended vide letter dated 19.06.1990 (P-6). After disposal of CWP No. 12618 of 1992, Government of Punjab had informed Government of India to take decision on the representation made by the petitioner.

A reply by way of counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 5 is to the same effect as filed by respondent No. 2

An affidavit dated 20.03.2012 of respondent No. 1 has also been filed in which it has been stated that on the basis of above said enquiry, pension sanctioned to the petitioner was stopped on 26.03.1990 (R-1 and R-2) and a show cause notice was issued to him as to why the pension sanctioned to the petitioner be not cancelled. The petitioner did not give any reply to the show cause notice within the stipulated time. It is denied that he had sent his reply on 15.04.1990. In compliance of order dated 07.04.1993, the petitioner submitted his reply to show cause notice on 13.07.1993, which has been received in the Ministry on 12.08.1993.

In compliance of order dated 25.02.2014 passed by this Court, a counter affidavit dated 19.05.2014 has been filed on behalf of Amar Chand, under Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, New Delhi stating therein that the case of the petitioner was examined as per judgment dated 7.4.1993 in CWP No. 12618 of 1992 filed by the petitioner, provisions of SSS Pension Scheme, 1980 and as per report of the Central Agency. It was found that Inder Singh and Bahal Singh had issued certificates indiscriminately and as such CPCs issued by them were not acceptable. Thereafter, the representation of the petitioner was rejected.

The petitioner in support of his claimed jail sufferings in Central Jail Lahore from 14.02.1941 to 13.08.19421 did not produce any primary evidence but produced secondary evidence as per provisions of SSS Pension Scheme. However, he was granted provisional pension from 1.8.1980 vide order dated 9.9.1988.

A complaint was received in the year 1989 that in the vicinity of Tehsil Rajpura, Distt. Patiala, some persons had manipulated to get pension in their favour fraudulently. The matter was investigated by Central Agency who stated that some persons of Rajpura who were sanctioned pension were neither resident of places mentioned in their applications nor circumstantial evidences were available in support of their claim for pension.

An analysis was carried out by Ministry of Home Affairs during 1995 and it was found that CPCs. were being issued indiscriminately in the State of Punjab, the details of some of them are as under:-

Reference has been made to judgment passed by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in a case of Mukund Lal Bhandari and others Vs. Union of India and others, , State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar, , State of Orissa v. Choudhari Nayak (dead by LR) and others in Civil Appeal No. 6818/10 whereby the Supreme Court has observed that the pension be sanctioned only after the required proof is produced and the Government shall not allow such false claimants to mock at the genuine freedom fighters.

Further Ministry had rejected or suspended the claims of thousands of fraudulent claimants and providing of false and forged CPCs.

The grievance of the petitioner throughout the writ petition is that letter dated 10.10.1995 was never been communicated to him. He has based his claim as per letter dated 02.11.1995 (Annexure P-9) annexed with the writ petition i.e. letter sent by Accountant General (A&E) Punjab to District Treasury Officer, Patiala wherein reference was made to letter dated 10.10.95. The petitioner is trying to get benefit from letter dated 02.11.1995 that his pension was restored by the Government of India. However, in the affidavit dated 20.03.2012 filed by respondent No. 1, a copy of this letter has been placed on record as Annexure R-3, which was duly communicated to the petitioner. This letter does not restore the pension of the petitioner rather cancelling the pension of the petitioner w.e.f. the date it was suspended, therefore, the claim of the petitioner on the basis of letter dated 02.11.1995 (Annexure P-9) that the respondents had restored the pension of the petitioner, does not survive.

Moreover, in the counter affidavit dated 09.05.2012, it is further clarified that as per Punjab Government Policy instructions vide letter dated 02.12.2004 (R-1/T), it has been decided that in the case wherein the documents/co-prisoner certificates submitted by the applicant are recommended by the Government of Punjab to Government of India after duly verification by the concerned Deputy Commissioner for the grant of freedom fighter pension but if such documents not accepted by Government of India and the case of the was applicant was rejected, the Punjab Freedom Fighter Pension will be stopped in that case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has chosen not to file any counter affidavit to the affidavit filed on 19.05.2014 by Amar Chand, under Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, New Delhi. In view of the above, no case is made out for restoring the pension of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed