SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(HP) 110

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
BHAWANI SINGH,D.P.SOOD
SUKH LAL - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 325 of 1991
Decided On : 12/15/1992

Advocates Appeared:
For the appellant(s)/petitioner(s):Mrs. Vandana Kuthiala. For (he respondent(s):Mr. P. A. Sharma Senior Central Government Standing Counsel with Mr. Dharam Chand Chaudhary, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Chhabil Dass, Advocate General for respondent No. 2.

A freedom fighter who has satisfactory proof of participation in the freedom movement is entitled to freedom fighter pension.

Headnote:

FREEDOM FIGHTER PENSION - REJECTION OF CLAIM - LACK OF PROOF - SATISFACTORY PROOF OF PARTICIPATION IN FREEDOM MOVEMENT - ENTITLEMENT TO PENSION.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a freedom fighter, claimed freedom fighter pension under the 1980 Scheme. His claim was rejected due to lack of proof. He filed a petition challenging the decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had satisfactory proof of his participation in the freedom movement, including certificates from other freedom fighters and a police officer.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was a freedom fighter and entitled to freedom fighter pension.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was a freedom fighter and entitled to freedom fighter pension based on the satisfactory proof of his participation in the freedom movement.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's case within two months and make the payment to him from the due date.

JUDGMENT

Bhawani Singh, A. C. J.—Petitioner (77) claims to be a freedom-fighter. He states that he was the subject of the Ruler of State of Bilaspur. Before independence, the Indian National Congress was fighting for the independence of the country from British Rule. Similar movements for the freedom of the country and for the merger of the princely States with the Indian Union were going on. Bilaspur was one of such princely States. This movement was being run by various Praja Mandals affiliated to "All India States Peoples Conference", a central organisation of which Pandit Jawahar Lai Nehru was the Chairman. The key object of said Praja Mandal movement in various States was to achieve independence for the country and merge the princely States with the Indian Union.

2. The petitioner was also attracted to this movement in Bilaspur. He became its active member. The Raja of Bilaspur made all efforts to suppress the movement by imprisoning and or ordering externment and internment of the political workers who were taking part in the Praja Mandal Movement. The Raja was a despot and his breath was law for the State under his control. Most of these princely States merged with the Indian Union on or before 1-5-1948. However, the Raja of Bilaspur con tinued to resist the pressure and suppressed the Praja Mandal Movement and it was only on 12-10-1948 that the State of Bilaspur was merged with Himachal Pradesh.

3. The petitioner took part in this movement from 1946 to October, 1948. He took part in the Satyagrah movement and was arrested and beaten by the Bilaspur Police and later under the Verbal Orders of the Raja of Bilaspur, he was externed from the State in October, 1946 and remained outside Bilaspur upto 1948 when the State was merged in Himachal Pradesh. Thus he remained externed for a period of about two years. He and his family suffered economically and physically due to the externment and repression by the Raja of Bilaspur. The petitioner applied for the grant of Freedom Fighter Pension under the 1980 Scheme. The application was supported by some certificates from Sh. Kahana and Khazana Singh. The papers of the petitioner were acknowledged by the first respondent. However, his claim was ultimately rejected vide letter dated 28-1-1984 on the ground that there was paucity of proof in support of the claim preferred by the petitioner.

4. The Pension Scheme was liberalised by the first respondent and cases of those freedom fighters who had once faced rejection were also covered and they were asked to apply afresh in accordance with the Liberalised Scheme. Persons who had already applied were not required to file fresh application. They could, however, send certificate(s) in support of the applications. Accordingly, the petitioner sent certificates of S/Shri Khushi Mohd, Chet Ram and Dy. S. P. Kartar Singh. The claim of the petitioner stands rejected for the reason that due to "lack of necessary certificates it is not possible to grant pension". The petitioner has filed the present petition assailing this decision on 21-5-1991 for direction to the respondents to allow him Freedom Fighers Pension.

5. We are told that the State of Himachal Pradesh had recommended the case of the petitioner on the basis of the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner of the area concerned. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner that his externment was on the basis of oral orders since we have accepted this kind of plea in many other similar cases also. Further the petitioner has produced certificates of Kahna Ram, a freedom fighter and Tamar Pattar Holder and receiver of this pension under P. P. O. No. 353/FF/Centre. In view of the contents of this certificate, it is not possible to accept the contention of Shri Dharam Chand Chaudhary who vehemently contended that this freedom fighter could not know about the externment of the petitioner when he himself was in jail. The petitioner was engaged in the Freedom Movements alongwi



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top