C.W.P. No.9371 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.9371 of 2008
Date of decision:21.07.2009.
Vidya Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present: Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. R.K.Chugh, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Anil Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab,
for respondent No.3.
*****
JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL).
This writ petition has been field by widow of a freedom
fighter namely Shri Bant Ram, to quash order dated 23.08.2006 (P-9),
vide which restoration of freedom fighter’s pension was declined to her.
It is apparent from the records that under Freedom Fighters
Pension Scheme, 1972, provisional pension was sanctioned in favour of
Shri Bant Ram on 15.01.1975 (P-3). That order was passed by taking
note of two certificates, dated 16.12.1973 and 29.03.1974 (P-1 & P-2),
issued by Ex.MLAs namely, Pt. Bishan Nath and Shri Surrendra Nath
Khosla. In these certificates, it was specifically mentioned that
Shri Bant Ram had actively participated in `Quit India Movement’ in
1942. He was arrested at Lahore for the same. He remained
imprisoned with them for about 8 months. Thereafter, it appears that
payment of freedom fighter pension was stopped on 13.04.1976 (P-4).
C.W.P. No.9371 of 2008 -2-
The Union of India, floated `Swantantrat Sainik Samman
Pension Scheme, 1980′. Shri Bant Ram staked his claim to get pension
under this Scheme also. His case was recommended by the State
Government, vide letter dated 03.07.1984 (P-6). In the meantime, Shri
Bant Ram died on 25.06.1986. Thereafter, the petitioner (widow), who
was dependent upon Shri Bant Ram, started her efforts to get pension,
permissible under the Scheme mentioned above. She came to this
Court, by filing CWP No.13482 of 2006, which was disposed of on
14.12.2008, by passing the following order : –
“Along with written statement filed by respondent
No.1 a copy of the order dated August 23, 2006 has been
appended, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of
pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension
Scheme has been rejected.
The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
present writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty
to the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order Annexure
P-1, in accordance with law.
Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid."She has filed this writ petition to lay challenge to the order
dated 23.08.2006 (P-9), vide which her claim to get pension under the
aforementioned scheme was rejected. To decline claim of the petitioner
in the impugned order, it was stated as follows: –
“i) Your client has failed to produce any primary
evidence in support of his claimed suffering.
ii) Your client has failed to produce a Non-Availability of
Record Certificate (NARC) from the concerned
C.W.P. No.9371 of 2008 -3-authority, which is a pre-requisite for secondary
evidence to the considered, where the records of the
relevant period are not available.
iii) Notwithstanding the above, he co-prisoner certificate
issued by one Shri Puran Chand, was found to be
unacceptable, as his own suffering was less than the
minimum period of 1 years, as required under the
provision of the pension scheme.
iv) Since then, no certificates/documents have ever
been received from Shri Bant Singh/Smt. Vidya Devi,
nor from the State Government.
v) He has failed to submit any acceptable evidentiary
evidence in support of his claimed participation in the
freedom struggle, as required under the provisions of
the Samman Pension Scheme.”
Counsel for the petitioner states that once case of the
petitioner has been recommended by the State Government, the
authorities were not justified to say that she was not eligible to get
pension, as per the Scheme. He has specifically stated that earlier,
when application was moved by Shri Bant Ram to get pension, two
certificates issued by Ex.MLAs were put on record. When second
application was moved, similar certificates were again put on record,
one by Puran Chand and second by Som Parkash, who suffered
imprisonment with her husband. By referring to above said fact,
counsel for the petitioner states that there was sufficient compliance to
the provisions of the Scheme.
It is necessary to mention here that as per Scheme of
1980, claim to get pension can be staked only by producing primary
C.W.P. No.9371 of 2008 -4-
evidence or secondary evidence. In the Scheme, secondary evidence
has been defined as under:-
“Secondary evidence: In case records of the relevant
period are not available, secondary evidence in the form of
2 co-prisoner’s certificates (CPC) from freedom fighters
who have proven jail suffering of a minimum 1 year and
who were with the applicant in the jail could be considered
provided the State Government/Union Territory
Administration concerned, after due verification of the claim
and its genuineness certifies that documentary evidence
from official records in support of the claimed suffering are
not available. In case the certifier happens to be a sitting
or ex-MP or ex-MLA, only one certificate in place of the two
is required.”
It is further mandated that the State Government is required
to give a certificate, after verifying the documents, that the relevant
record, to support the evidence, is not available.
It is apparent from the record that the case for grant of
pension to the petitioner was recommended by the State Government,
vide letter dated 03.07.1984, by taking note of affidavit of Shri Bant Ram
and certificates issued by his co-prisoners. At that relevant time, when
recommendation was made, it was incumbent upon the State
Government to further certify that the record, to support claim put up by
Shri Bant Ram and regarding facts mentioned in the certificates, of his
co-prisoners, was not available, but that was not done, which resulted
into passing of order Annexure P-9. Certificates, earlier issued by two
Ex.MLAs, when provisional pension was granted in favour of Shri Bant
Ram, and two more certificates annexed with the second application,
C.W.P. No.9371 of 2008 -5-
were available with the State Government. Under these circumstances,
it was necessary for the State Government to verify the facts regarding
non availability of the record also, as envisaged under the Scheme.
The officers concerned have failed to act properly, which has dragged
the petitioner into litigation for the last so many years.
In view of facts mentioned above, this writ petition is partly
allowed. Order Annexure P-9 is set aside and directions are issued to
the State Government of Punjab to take note of two certificates put on
record by Shri Bant Ram (P-1 and P-2), when provisional pension was
granted to him and two more certificates which were brought on record,
when second application was moved and then, after verifying a fact that
the record is not available, as is necessary under the Scheme,
recommend case of the petitioner to the Central Government for
sanction of pension. On receipt of recommendation, the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 are directed to sanction pension to the petitioner, as per
Scheme. Arrears be also paid.
Counsel for the petitioner is directed to supply photocopies
of all the four certificates, already furnished to respondent No.3, to
process her case. Respondent No.3 is directed to do the needful, within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Disposed of.
July 21, 2009. ( JASBIR SINGH ) vinod JUDGE