SHETHNA, J. - (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. However, learned counsel Shri Malik for the petitioner relying upon the Single Bench Judgment of Madras High Court in case of K. S. Velusamy vs. Government of India (1), submitted that when the State Govt. has already granted pension and `tamra Patra' to the petitioner as a freedom fighter then the Central Govt. could not have rejected the application of petitioner for pension. It is true that in Velusamy's case (supra) it is held by the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court that once the petitioner was granted State Pension the Union of India was not justified in passing the impugned order of rejecting the claim of the petitioner for Central Freedom Fighter Pension. By holding that the learned Single Judge set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Union of India for fresh disposal in light of the observations made by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in case of R. Thangavelu vs. Government of India In case of R. Thangavelu (supra) it was held by the Division Bench of Madras High Court that, "once either the State Government or the Central Government grants pension to a particular freedom fighter, he must automatically get the other pension either under the State or under the Central Government Scheme without any further enquiry. " With profound respect to the Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench of Madras High Court, it is extremely difficult to agree with the view because there are different schemes framed by the State Govt. as well as by the Union of India and different criterias are provided for grant of pension. The petitioner has produced the scheme framed by the Central Govt. but not produced the scheme framed by the State Govt. regarding grant of pension as a freedom fighter. However, from the scheme produced by the petitioner alongwith this petition, it is clear that the main requirement is that one has to suffer R. I. for six months. It is not sufficient that one should be convicted and sentenced for a period not less than six months. When there are specific provisions then merely because the State Govt. for one or the other reasons granted pension and `tamra Patra' to the petitioner that does not necessarily means that the Central Govt. is also bound to grant pension to the petitioner as a freedom fighter, if the criteria is not satisfied by him. Shri Malik has also relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of Madras High Court in case of S. Rajamani vs. Union of India (3) and submitted that when the petitioner is already granted `tamra Patra' by the State Govt. alongwith the pension then the Central Govt. ought to have granted pension to the petitioner under the Central Scheme as a freedom fighter. In Rajamani's case (supra) facts were totally different. The petitioner Rajamani was granted `tamra Patra' by the State Govt. itself, but he was not granted pension by the State Govt. This is not the case here. In this case the Union of India has not only filed reply affidavit but specifically controverted the case of the petitioner that he has suffered imprisonment for more than 6 months. In fact it was pointed out from the record of the case that the petitioner has simply undergone the sentence for one month and for rest of the period he was on bail. In that view of the matter, Rajamani's case (supra) has no application on the facts of this case. Last judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Pyare Lal Mishra vs. State of Rajasthan and others I would like to re-produce the relevant portion of the judgment, which is as under:- " 6. I am satisfied that the petitioner who is of 83 years of age, is a Freedom Fighter and he actively participated in freedom movement of India. During his young age he remained in detention from 29. 10. 1930 to 12. 4. 1931 and under the scheme for grant of Freedom Fighter Pension he is entitled to Freedom Fighters Pension. It was incumbent upon the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (Freedom Fighters Cell), New Delhi to release Freedom Fighters Pension payable to the petitioner. If there was any impediment in the way of releasing the said pension the Union of India ought to have filed the reply to the writ petition. By not filing the reply to the writ petition, it appears that the Union of India and the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (Freedom Fighters Cells), New Delhi have nothing to say against the said petition. "
(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. If the petitioner does not fulfil the criteria for pension under the Central Govt. Scheme then merely because the State Govt. has issued `tamra Patra' and granted pension to him that automatically would not entitle him to get pension under the Central Govt. Scheme also as a freedom fighter. In view of the above discussion, I do not see any reason to entertain this petition. ;