- (1.) THE petitioner claiming to be a Freedom Fighter, in the instant writ petition, seeks the following relief: (a) the respondents be directed to release Freedom Fighters Pension payable to the petitioner. (b) the respondents be directed to pay the arrears of pension payable to the petitioner with effect from December 15, 1981 along with interest @ 18 per cent per annum.
(2.) AS per the facts depict in the writ petition the petitioner had participated in the Freedom movement of India during the British regime. The petitioner remained in Jail during 1946-1947. In June 1946 during lathi charge by Police at Domel Bridge in Srinagar, the petitioner sustained fracture on his foot. The petitioner remained in Jail in September 1942 and onwards at Srinagar and Kargil. These facts have been verified by Shri Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, the then Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir State on the basis of record and on verification of Mohalla Committee President and Secretary. The certificate was issued on April 7, 1949 in Urdu Language. During the period between November 16, 1947 to November 16, 1949, the petitioner worked as the ASsistant Manager of Refugee Camp No. 24 at Srinagar. On December 15, 1981 the petitioner submitted application to the Government of India for grant of pension under `swantantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme'. The petitioner's application for grant of Freedom Fighter pension was verified by Shri Girdhari Lal Bhargava, Member of Parliament. On May 19, 1990 the pension case of the petitioner was also forwarded by the Government of Rajasthan to the Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India pursuant to the request made by it vide letter dated April 11, 1990. The Government of India vide communication dated September 9, 1998 informed the petitioner as under- " I am directed to refer to your application which was received in this Ministry on 18. 6. 90 on the above subject and to say that you have not furnished the following documentary evidence about your claimed jail suffering: (a) copy of FIR. (b) Record of the jurisdictional trying court to whom the FIR was sent up and whether the court was in existence in the year the suffering has been claimed. (c) Copy of order of the court. (d) Jail Certificate. 2. The paper which you claim to be a verification of J & K Government, only mentions that you had been in a Refugee Camp from 16. 11. 1947 to 16. 11. 1949 and did social service. It is therefore not a verification of your claimed suffering. 3. Therefore unless the evidence as required under the SSSP Scheme is furnished your case would continue as rejected. " The contention of the petitioner is that he has produced sufficient evidence of his sufferings but the respondent illegally refused to grant him freedom fighter pension. The respondents 1 and 2 filed separate replies to the writ petition. In the reply the respondent No. 1 i. e. State of Rajasthan averred as under- (a) The petitioner is not entitled to receive freedom fighter pension as provided under the provisions of Rajasthan Political Sufferer Rules of 1959. As per rule 6 of Rules of 1959, the person who has after attaining the majority has participated in freedom fighter movement and during that period has been detailed in jail and has not been released on taking pardon, will only be entitled to get the freedom fighter pension under the Rules 1959, but the petitioner does not possess any requisite certificate from jail authorities. The petitioner has not moved any application for getting freedom fighter pension before the State Government under the Rules of 1959. (b) As per Rule 4 of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme of 1980 the person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment of 6 months in the main land jails before the independence and in case of the SC and ST and women, the minimum period of actual imprisonment for eligibility of pension has been reduced to 3 months. The petitioner has not remained in jail for 6 months as provided under the Scheme and no such certificate has been produced by him as such he is not entitled to get any pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. (c) The petitioner concealed material facts from this Hon'ble Court as such he is not entitled to get the relief as claimed. (d) The petitioner's case does not fall within the ambit of Rule 6 of the Freedom Fighter Rules, 1959 for grant of freedom fighter pension. The petitioner has not submitted any proof of remaining to be in jail as provided under Rule 6 as well as under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 and pension as claimed cannot be granted without proof of remaining in jail. (e) Verification of application by Member of Parliament does not give any right to the petitioner to get any freedom fighter pension and he has to fulfill the requisite conditions as prescribed under the Rules. (f) Vide letter dated April 26, 1990 the State of Rajasthan in response to letter dated April 11, 1990 directed the petitioner to submit proof of jail certificate but the petitioner has neither replied the said letter, nor produced the said letter along with the writ petition. In the counter affidavit the respondent No. 2, Union of India stated as under- (a) During 1972, the 25th Anniversary of Independence, the Government of India introduced a Scheme known as Freedom Fighters' pension Scheme 1972 for grant of freedom Fighter's pension to freedom fighters and their families, if they were no more alive and to the family of martyrs. Pension was admissible to those freedom fighters whose annual income was less than Rs. 5,000/- and who had suffered imprisonment/abscondence/internment/externment for atleast six months against an executive order of the then Government in connection with the freedom struggle. (b) With effect from 1. 8. 1980 the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 came into existence and the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme 1972 ceased to exist. Under the scheme the income ceiling was removed and the minimum jail suffering for the purpose of eligibility for pension was reduced from six months to three months in the case of women self freedom fighters and SC/st freedom fighters. The applicant claiming imprisonment has to submit jail certificate in support of his suffering and in case the jail certificate is not available, he has to produce non-availability of records certificate (NARC) + Co- prisoners certificates (CPCs) from two prominent freedom fighters who should have undergone imprisonment for atleast one year. In case, certifies is an MP, or MLA or Ex-MP or Ex-MLA who had been freedom fighter himself only one certificate is sufficient. Further, as per the provisions of the Scheme and the instructions issued thereunder, Swatantrata Samman Pension Scheme, pension can be sanctioned only after receipt of the State Government's verification report and recommendations. (c) The petitioner has claimed 8 months jail suffering in Srinagar, Muzaffrarabad and Kargil as detailed below (1) 1942 (2 months)- Srinagar (2) 14-15 June, 1946 to Sept. 1946 (3 months) - Muzzaffarabad ; (3) Sept. 1947 - Dec. 1947 (3 months) - Kargil. The petitioner also claimed that his left foot was injured by police lathi charge on 10. 6. 1946. (d) In support of his claim of jail suffering, petitioner failed to submit any jail certificate as required in the ambit of the scheme. (e) The State Government did not recommend the case for grant of SSS Pension to the petitioner. Keeping in view all the factors, the case of the petitioner was examined and rejected a number of times and was lastly rejected on February 13, 2001.
(3.) THE petitioner filed separate rejoinders to the reply and the counter affidavit submitted by the respondents reiterating the facts stated in the writ petition. I have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. In Mukund Lal Bhandari and others vs. Union of India and others (1), their Lordships of the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the object of Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme. It was indicated thus- " The object was to honour and where it was necessary, also to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country in the honour of its need. In fact, many of those who do not have sufficient income to maintain themselves refuse to take benefit of it, since they consider it as an affront to the sense of patriotism with which they plunged in the Freedom Struggle. The spirit of the scheme being both to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge the valuable sacrifices made, it would be contrary to its spirit to convert it into some kind of programme of compensation. " ;