Mahesh Grover, J. - (1.) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ specially in the nature of Certiorari to quash order dated 11.12.2009 vide which the claim of the petitioner for grant of arrears of pension of revised Sainik Samman Pension Scheme as revised by Government from time to time as per Annexures P-8 to P-17 placed on record has been rejected.
(2.) It has been stated in the impugned order that the benefit of the revised pension of Sainik Samman Pension Scheme cannot be made admissible to the petitioner's husband because her husband was only entitled to grant of special pension for the service as 'Army personnel who revolted against British rule'. Husband of the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of CWP no. 2766 of 2004 which was dealt alongwith another writ petition of the like nature and while disposing of the case of the petitioner's husband, this Court has observed as follows:- "The case of Sawaran Singh, petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.2766 of 2004, as already noticed, is slightly different. The petitioner in this case has made a prayer for grant of special pension to him, being an Ex.Army person, who had revolted against the British authorities. The grant of this pension, apparently is also regulated by the same scheme i.e. Freedom Fighter/Sainik Samman Pension. This can be seen from Annexure P-7, which is an extract of the minutes of the Joint Committee of the Freedom Fighters and officials held on November 13, 1997. It would be advantageous to reproduce the minutes of this meeting, which are as under:- "Ex.Army Personnel covered by the special pension scheme should be brought under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme as per the recommendation made in the last Joint Committee Meeting. Further, the name of 3/12 Punjab Regiment may be changed as Royal Frontier Force and 16-20 persons whose details could not be verified by Ministry of Defence may be granted pension on the basis of certificates given by the Special Pensioners." In fact, this is the same minutes and a decision which has been heavily relied by the petitioner to say that the name of 3/12 Punjab Regiment was directed to be changed as Royal Frontier Force with the further recommendation that 16 to 20 persons whose details could not be verified may be granted pension on the basis of a certificate given by the special pensioners. According to the petitioner, this change is not being noticed and as such, his claim has been rejected on a totally inappropriate ground that the Ministry of Defence has not been able to furnish any verification report. It would have been a different matter if, on verification, the claim of the petitioner would have been found not made out. Such an indifferent attitude towards a person who sacrificed his life for the sake of nation One may need to appreciate that for a trained soldier it is very difficult to resort to a mutiny against a alien ruler. Instead of enjoying the comforts of service, the petitioner chose a difficult path for which he faced a Court martial and a sentence for transportation of life. He had undergone an imprisonment of almost seven years and in return, he is just praying for a sum of Rs. 200-300/- as a Samman being a Freedom Fighter Pension. Beni Ram, Under Secretary to the Government of India, who has expressed his regrets and inability to admit the claim of the petitioner can not realise the agony, torture and suffering the petitioner would have undergone for the cause of getting freedom for this Nation. He also needs to go through the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as reproduced above, to understand the nature and purpose of the Scheme as well as the object and the standard of proof required in such cases. He obviously has not taken any care to notice the decision taken in the Joint Committee meeting on 13.11.1997, whereby the claim of 16 to 20 persons, which could not be verified by the Ministry of Defence were to be granted pension on the basis of the certificates given by the Special Pensioner. If he had taken a bit of a care, then he would have taken into consideration the affidavit given by Bhagwant Singh, Freedom Fighter, who had been a co-prisoner of the petitioner at Selular Jail, Andeman from October 1940 to 10.2.1942. As per this certificate, Bhagwant Singh was also the co-prisoner of the petitioner at Indore Jail from 23.5.1942 to September 1946. Bhagwant Singh is a recipient of a pension from the Central Government as well as from the Punjab Government. How could this evidence be ignored except for totally indifferent attitude of those dealing with the cases. I am of the considered view that this evidence in the light of decision of the Joint Committee referred to above would be sufficient enough to admit the claim of the petitioner as a Freedom Fighter and for grant of pension to him under the Scheme as formulated. There is no other reason for which the petitioner has been declined this Samman. In my view, he deserves it. He can not be deprived from this Samman any more on any of the consideration that has weighed with the authorities so far. The impugned order dated 5.1.2004, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, as such, can not be sustained and the same is set aside. Direction is hereby issued for grant of Sainik Samman Pension due to the petitioner. Further direction is to the effect that the pension be released to the petitioner from the date he had moved application in this regard and the arrears be released to him alongwith 9% interest from the date it is due to the date of payment. The above-noted three writ petitions are accordingly allowed in the terms as noted. The respondents are directed to calculate and release the pension to the respective petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. I am refraining from awarding exemplary costs in these cases since I have directed release of pension with interest."
(3.) Subsequent thereto since the benefit of Sainik Samman Pension Scheme was not being made available to the husband of the petitioner, a contempt petition was preferred in which the respondents categorically stated that the order of the writ Court stood complied with and that a decision has been taken to grant Sainik Samman Pension Scheme to the petitioner's husband vide order dated 4.12.2009 subject to his completing other formalities which are required. The petitioner contends that subsequent to the decision dated 4.12.2009 the benefits have been made available to her as per Sainik Samman Pension Scheme but the benefit of revision which took place from time to time in accordance with Annexures P-8 to P-17 have not been granted to her.;