Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
P.D.DESAI,V.P.GUPTA
TEJ SINGH NIDHARAK - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
C. W. P. No. 224 of 1983
Decided On : 01/09/1984
FREEDOM FIGHTERS PENSION SCHEME - MANDI STATE PUBLIC SAFETY ORDINANCE (1 OF 2004 BK.) - S.4(1) - FREEDOM FIGHTERS PENSION SCHEME, 1972 - CLS.(A) AND (G) - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY - FREEDOM FIGHTER DETAINED UNDER S.4(1) OF THE MANDI STATE PUBLIC SAFETY ORDINANCE FOR A PERIOD LESS THAN SIX MONTHS - ENTITLEMENT TO PENSION UNDER CL.(G) OF THE SCHEME.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a freedom fighter, was detained under S.4(1) of the Mandi State Public Safety Ordinance for a period less than six months after India's independence. He applied for a pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972, but his application was rejected on the ground that he did not suffer imprisonment for a period of six months. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a pension under cl.(g) of the Scheme, which did not prescribe any minimum period of imprisonment. The court found that the petitioner was a freedom fighter who suffered imprisonment in the movement for the merger of the erstwhile State of Mandi in the Union of India after Aug. 15, 1947 but before the date of the accession of the State of Mandi to the Union of India which took place on May 1, 1948.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972, despite being detained for a period less than six months.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted cl.(g) of the Scheme and found that it did not prescribe any minimum period of imprisonment. The court held that the petitioner was covered by cl.(g) since he was a freedom fighter who suffered imprisonment in the movement for the merger of the erstwhile State of Mandi in the Union of India after Aug. 15, 1947 but before the date of the accession of the State of Mandi to the Union of India.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the first respondent to determine the pension payable to the petitioner in accordance with the scheme and in the light of the observations made herein on and with effect from the date from which he becomes eligible thereto which cannot be later than the date of his application, namely, June 5, 1976.
P. D. Desai, C.J.:- The petitioner is and has always been residing in the area which initially formed part of the Princely State of Mandi. He was an active participant in the Praja Mandal Movement carried on in the Mandi State since long time prior to its merger with the Union of India on May 1, 1948. It appears that on account of his involvement in the Praja Mandal Movement, he had earned the displeasure of the State administration.
2. On or about July 21, 1947 (5.5.2004 Bk.), the then Home Minister of Mandi made a proposal for the detention of some persons and one amongst them was the petitioner. In the proposal, a copy whereof is produced at Annexure PB, the petitioner was described as a "confirmed seditionist" who indulged in delivering speeches creating disaffection in the public mind and advocating blood bath and unlawful activities for attaining independence. The Home Minister observed that it was, at one stage, considered to prosecute the petitioner for his unlawful activities since executive action might not be considered proper. However, in view of the various difficulties in obtaining conviction at a criminal trial, the proposal was dropped. The Home Minister proposed that the petitioner be detained under S.4 of the Mandi State Public Safety Ordinance (1 of 2004 Bk.) for a period of six months. The proposal appears to have been submitted for sanction to the Ruler of Mandi State on July 22. 1947 (6.5.2004 Bk.), who rnade an order, a copy whereof has been produced at Annexure PC, to the effect that the matter was discussed at length and that the authorities might take such action as they considered best in the interest of the State and the people.
3. It appears that pursuant to the decision taken as aforesaid, the petitioner was detained from Sept. 3, 1947 (13.6.2004 Bk.) till Feb. 4, 1948 (13.11.2004 Bk.), that is to say, for a total period of five months and one day. At Annexure PD, the petitioner has produced an extract of the Register of Undertrial Prisoners in the Mandi Jail. The extract has been verified with the original record, which was produced for our inspection by the second respondent, and it has been found to be substantially correct. The extract shows that the petitioners detention in the Mandi Jail commenced on Sept. 3, 1947, that his detention was under S.4(1) of the Mandi State Public Safety Ordinance and that he was released on Feb. 4, 1948 pursuant to an order of even date made by the Ruler of Mandi State.
4. It might be incidentally mentioned that there is an entry against col. 10 of the extract which shows that on and with effect from Sept. 15, 1947 (25.6.2004 Bk.), the petitioner was treated as an under-trial prisoner for offences punishable under Ss.302/307, 395, 225,413 and 149 I.P.C. Be it stated that though the extract mentions S.413 of I.P.C. as one of the offences which the petitioner was alleged to have committed, the original record does not mention the said section.
5. The foregoing facts would show that initially, from Sept. 3, 1947 till Sept. 15, 1947, the petitioner was detained under the provisions of S.4(1) of the Mandi State Public Safety Ordinance, and that subsequently he was treated as an under-trial prisoner. Besides, the entire period of confinement of the petitioner in jail was after India attained independence, that is, after Aug. 15, 1947. This last circumstance, coupled with the proposal for his detention (Annexure PB), clearly indicates that the initial detention of the petitioner was in the course of the movement for the merger of the State of Mandi with the Union of India after the country attained independence. The petitioner has averred in para 8 of the petition that so far as his confinement as an under-trial prisoner is concerned, the same was on account of fabricated cases launched against him and his colleagues in the Praja Mandal.
6. The Union Government promulgated the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) which came
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
