Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Brahmi Devi - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
CWP No. 4418 of 2015
Decided on : 29-09-2016
Mandamus - Freedom Fighter's Pension - Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 - 1972 Scheme for granting freedom fighters' Pension - [1972 Scheme, Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980] - The court discussed the denial of freedom fighter pension to the widow of a late freedom fighter and the legal provisions under the 1972 and 1980 schemes. It highlighted the liberal approach required in considering the cases of persons seeking pension under such schemes and the presumption in favor of the claimant. The court also emphasized the object of the scheme to honor and mitigate the sufferings of those who sacrificed for the country, and the need to avoid technicalities in evaluating the eligibility for pension.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, widow of a late freedom fighter, sought mandamus to grant her husband's Freedom Fighter's Pension from 1974 with all consequential benefits. The respondents denied the pension, citing procedural formalities and revised guidelines issued in 2014.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the late husband was acknowledged as a freedom fighter by the State, and the denial of pension based on technicalities was unjust. It emphasized the need for a liberal approach in considering the cases of persons seeking pension under such schemes and the presumption in favor of the claimant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the State could deny the freedom fighter pension to the widow based on procedural formalities and revised guidelines, despite acknowledging the late husband as a freedom fighter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of pension based on technicalities was unjust and emphasized the need for a liberal approach in considering the cases of persons seeking pension under such schemes. It also highlighted the object of the scheme to honor and mitigate the sufferings of those who sacrificed for the country.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner to submit an application for the pension on the prescribed proforma, and upon receipt, the respondents were ordered to grant the pension from the due date in 1974. Failure to release the pension within eight weeks would result in the respondents being liable to pay 9% interest on the said pension from the due date.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan J.
This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:-
“(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant Freedom Fighter’s Pension as per the scheme to the petitioner being widow of late Shri Dhani Ram (Freedom Fighter) from the due date i.e. w.e.f. 04.04.1974 with all consequential benefits in light of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court in (2014) 10 SCC 352 titled as Union of India & another Vs. Jai Kishun Singh.”
2. The facts in brief as set out in the petition are that the husband of petitioner Sh. Dhani Ram served in the Dogra Regiment as Sepoy against enrolment No. 8210 till 13.7.1946, when on account of reduction of Indian Army on demobilization, he was released from service. During his service, Sh. Dhani Ram participated in World War 2nd by joining Indian Army from 1939-1945 and was awarded Pacific Star, Defence Medal and War Medal. That apart, all the similarly situated persons, like the petitioner were declared freedom fighters of the Nation.
3. On 1.8.1973 the State of Himachal Pradesh issued a letter to award Tamrapatras to the freedom fighters of District Bilaspur, Mandi, Hamirpur and Kullu and in the said list Sh. Dhani Ram’s named figured at Sr. No. 37 alongside one another freedom fighter Lashkari Ram whose name appeared at Sr. No. 12. On 15.8.1973 the Tamrapatra was awarded to Sh. Dhani Ram. The status of Sh. Dhani Ram being freedom fighter was acknowledged by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, when he issued an identity card in his favour vide Annexure P- 4.
4. Sh.Dhani Ram continued to pursue his request for grant of freedom fighter pension, however, before the same could be granted he unfortunately died on 2.5.2010 and it is his widow who thereafter has been pursuing the claim. It is also claimed that the aforesaid Sh. Lashkari Ram who had also been serving with Sh. Dhani Ram in Dogra Regiment against Enrolment No. 9010222 as Lance Naik was awarded pension w.e.f. 4.4.1974 being freedom fighter, whereas the same has been illegally denied to Sh. Dhani Ram (now to his widow).
5. The Deputy Commissioner (respondent No. 4) filed his reply, wherein it was averred that Sh. Dhani Ram served as Sepoy in Dogra Regiment during the British Empire and he was discharged from service on 13th July, 1946 on deduction of Indian Army on demobilization. Thereafter Sh. Dhani Ram never approached the replying respondent for complying his case for benefit of Freedom Fighter. As regards the issuance of Identity Card, it is claimed that the same was issued in his name on the basis of “Citizen” awarded by the government of Himachal Pradesh on 15.8.1972. It is thereafter averred that in the year 2014, one e-mail request from the petitioner was received and the matter was thereafter sent to respondent No. 5 and till date neither the procedural formalities have been completed nor has the petitioner submitted any application in the prescribed proforma to the replying respondent. However, the respondent has admitted that Sh. Lashkari Ram was declared as freedom fighter on his application as per scheme vide letter No. 17-B-1095/73-FF dated 9.8.1973 by the State Government as per pre-requisite verification and documents submitted by him to the government of Himachal Pradesh.
6. The Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh (respondent No. 3) has filed his separate reply, wherein it is admitted that Sh. Dhani Ram served in Dogra Regiment of the British Army for the time claimed in the petition. However, it is claimed that the husband of the petitioner has never submitted any application to the competent authority for grant of Freedom Fighter Pension. It is also averred that though the petitioner had submitted an application 18.2.2015 for grant of Freedom Fighter Pension to her under the Government of India Scheme, however on scrutiny it was found that the petitioner had not made available a certificate of Indian National Army along with her
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
