SURATI PRAKASH GAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner being freedom fighter applied to the Union of India to grant pension under the Central Pension Scheme for freedom fighter, which was rejected on 17. 12. 1982 (Annex. 6) on the ground that the period of imprisonment was less than six months and that he was released on bail. Aggrieved of that the petitioner made a review application on 27. 3. 88 alongwith two certificates of freedom fighters, but the same was also rejected on 17. 12. 1990 on the same ground. Hence, this petition.

(2.) MR. Malik for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner remained under trial w. e. f. 6. 11. 1942 to 27. 4. 43 and remained in jail w. e. f. 28. 4. 1943 to 29. 5. 1943. Thus, total period under trial and sentence spent in jail is about 7 months and 23 days. Therefore, the Union of India was wrong in rejecting his application for grant of pension by the impugned order at Annex. 6 and also rejecting review application by order at Annex. 10. However, learned counsel Shri Mathur for respondent Union of India submitted that the petitioner was arrested by Barmer Police on 6. 11. 1942 and he was granted bail on 19. 11. 1942 and he continued on bail by learned Special Magistrate, Jodhpur. Lateron, he was convicted on 28. 4. 1943 and suffered to under go rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 25/-, but he remained in jail from 28. 4. 1943 to 29. 5. 1943 and he was bailed out on 29. 5. 1943 by the appellate court and lateron he was acquitted. Thus, he was in jail only for one month, whereas, the minimum period required under the Scheme is for six months. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the original order at page 70 (Annex. R/1), from that it is clear that alongwith the present petitioner two other accused were also ordered to be released on bail and they were continued to remain on bail from 19. 11. 1942 by the learned Special Magistrate, Jodhpur. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that Union of India has committed any error in rejecting the application for pension of petitioner by impugned order at Annex. 6 and rejecting the review petition by impugned order at Annex. 10.

(3.) AS stated earlier, in this case the Union of India has already filed reply affidavit and also produced the documentary evidence in support of its case. From the averments made in reply affidavit, it is clear that there is no error committed by the Union of India while passing the impugned order at Annex. 6 and Annex. 10.