RATHORE, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is an old lady of 70 years whose deceased husband actively participated in Arya Samaj Movement in the year 1913 within the erstwhile Nizams State of Hyderabad and was convicted and remained in jail for one year and three months.
(2.) IN the year 1972 Central Government implemented a scheme for grant of pension to the freedom fighters. Pursuant to that petitioner's husband submitted the application for grant of pension. But the claim of the petitioner's husband was rejected vide order dated 19. 9. 72. Later on while recognising the active role and participation of the petitioner's late husband in Arya Samaj Movement, he was advised by the respondent No. 1 to submit certificates about his sufferings for proper and necessary action. In the mean while when the matter for grant of pension by the State Government was pending before the state authority, the petitioner's husband died on 29. 10. 87. State Government vide its order dated 2. 12. 89 granted pension to dependent of freedom fighters. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was recognised a freedom fighter by the State Government and under the scheme formulated by the Central Government. The petitioner's husband has suffered imprisonment for more than six months, he is entitled for the freedom fighters pension under this scheme. Petitioner's husband also furnished imprisonment certificate which was issued by the Superintendent, Orangabad Central prison on the application and same has been submitted by the petitioner's husband before the Central Government for grant of freedom fighter pension under the scheme. During the pendency of the application so moved by the petitioner's husband the petitioner also informed the authority that her husband Shri Mool Chand Tanwar died on 29. 10. 87 and prayed for pension as dependent of freedom fighter. But vide Annex. 11 which was issued on August 88 the petitioner's claim was rejected on the ground that application was received in this Ministry without documentary evidence in support of jail sufferings after the expiry of the last date i. e. 30. 6. 86. As such them claim of the petitioner was rejected as being time- barred.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognised the petitioners in Arya Samaj Movement as a freedom fighter and allowed the pension to the persons who participated in the Arya Samaj Movement. Pursuant to the Supreme Court judgment the petitioner also submitted fresh representation before the respondent No. 3 but the representation was not considered by the respondent. Petitioner also pointed out this fact that similarly situated person who participated in Arya Samaj Movement has been recognised and granted freedom fighter pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment reported in Gurdial Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (1), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the scheme was introduced with the object of providing grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families and to the family of martyrs. It has to be kept in mind that millions of masses of this country and participated in the freedom struggle without any expectation of grant of any scheme at the relevant time. It has also to be kept in mind that in the partition of the country most of the citizens who suffered imprisonment were handicapped to get the relevant record from the jails where they had suffered imprisonment. ;