Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-243-2012 (O&M) Date of decision:-11.09.2013 Union of India and another ...Appellants Versus Mohinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr.D.S.Bishnoi, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr.R.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the respondent.
Mr.H.S.Sethi, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, with Mr.Sandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
**** SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, C.J.(ORAL) CM-593-2012 (for condonation of 106 days’ delay in filing the appeal) CM-3708-2012 (for stay) & LPA-243-2012 The appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.09.2011 directing the grant of the freedom fighters pension by the Union of India under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Scheme inclusive of arreaRs.It is the case of the petitioner (respondent herein) that he had suffered imprisonment at Lahore Jail during the freedom struggle between the period from 20.10.1942 to 15.08.1943.
As is the usual situation, verification of these facts was difficult in view of absence of records.
However, the approach to be adopted has been enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh Vs Union of India and LPA-243-2012 (O&M) 2 otheRs.2001(8) SCC8clarifying that the standard of proof required is not the same as in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of parties.
Since the object of the scheme is to honour and mitigate the sufferings of the freedom fighteRs.a liberal and not a technical approach has been directed to be adopted.
It is not in dispute that there are affidavits of two persons Gopal Singh Quami and Kala Singh who have themselves been recipients of TaMr.Patra and beneficiaries under the pension scheme certifying that the respondent was their co-prisoner.
This is the basis of the impugned order.
The reason for rejection of the case of the respondent is that these two persons have been certifying a number of people.
However, that in our view cannot be the only reason to reject the claim because there may be large number of people imprisoned at the same time.
We may note that in terms of order dated 19.12.2012, a fact finding inquiry was directed to be completed by the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala.
However, no concrete material has emerged in view of the absence of records.
There are hardly any contemporaries of the respondent.
His sister is supporting his case, but nobody else has been able to verify the position.
The respondent is 84 years old.
He is the beneficiary of the freedom fighters pension by the State of Punjab.
He is certified as a Co.prisoner by two TaMr.Patra holders who are also recipients of such pension.
LPA-243-2012 (O&M) 3 In order to put the controveRs.at rest, learned counsel for the respondent states that given the age of the said respondent he is satisfied even if future pension is given to him from the date of order of the learned Single Judge.
This position cannot be seriously disputed by learned counsel for the appellants who, however, states that this should not be treated as a precedent.
We feel that the aforesaid is a fair resolution to the matter in issue, moreso when the appeal itself has been filed with the delay of 106 days with no satisfactory explanation other than the usual movement from table to table which is no more an excuse in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Office of the Chief Postmaster General and others Vs Living Media India Limited and another AIR 2012 SC1506 We, thus, modify the impugned order inasmuch as the freedom fighter/respondent would be paid by the appellant/Union of India from the date of order of the learned Single Judge.
The necessary action be taken by the appellant/Union of India within one month from today.
The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terMs.(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE1109.2013 Amodh Sharma Amodh 2013.09.13 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh