Judgment:
ORDER
Vyas, J.
1. By the present writ petition, which is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ directing the respondents to pay pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980 ('the Scheme' for short).
2. The petitioner was born on 1st July, 1925 and at the relevant time was studying in the 6th standard in a school at Pune. He participated in the freedom movement in 1942 and as a result of an incident which took place in or about August, 1942 the petitioner was arrested. According to the petitioner, this happened on 11th August, 1942. However, the date of arrest in the records of the criminal prosecution has been shown as 27th September, 1942. The petitioner was charged for offence of breach of several rules of the Defence of India Rules and also under Ss. 147 and 149 of Indian Penal Code. He was found guilty of the offences and was convicted and ordered to suffer imprisonment for a maximum period of 12 months. This order of conviction was passed on 27th February, 1943 and petitioner on the basis of his arrest having taken place on 27th September, 1942 was thus in jail during that period. He preferred an appeal against the order of conviction and sentence to this Court and in the appeal the sentence was reduced and he was released on 3rd June, 1943. Thus, according to the petitioner, he was behind bars from 27th September, 1942 to 3rd June, 1943. Thus, according to him, he had undergone imprisonment for six months and as he had participated in the freedom movement, he is qualified for the pension scheme announced on 16th September, 1972 which is meant for freedom fighters. An application was submitted by the petitioner in the prescribed form. No reply was received from the respondents. The petitioner made several attempts to pursue the matter but nothing happened. It is the petitioner's contention, which is not disputed, that the State Government sanctioned pension to the petitioner under its pension scheme on 15th December, 1983. The petitioner again submitted a fresh application as being eligible under the above mentioned scheme of the Union of India and the same was submitted as required through the State Government who after verification of the claim of the petitioner recommended the same. On 14th August, 1986 the first respondent informed the petitioner that he did not satisfy the criteria as he did not prove his claim of imprisonment for more than six months, and, therefore, his application was rejected. In fact, in reply to the said letter, the petitioner enclosed a letter dated 27/28th September, 1972 issued in his favour by the Commissioner of Police stating therein that the petitioner was arrested on 11th August, 1942 in connection with the independence movement, was convicted and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months. He also enclosed a certificate from Yeravada Central Prison dated 31st Oct. 1972 stating therein that the petitioner was admitted to the said prison on 27th February, 1943 and was released on 3rd June, 1943. He had submitted further documents which included an affidavit, inter alia, stating therein that he had in all undergone imprisonment for 9 months and 21 days. Further documents as enumerated in para 12 of the petition were also sent to the respondents. However, he did not receive any reply. It is the petitioner's case in the petition that he is eligible under the said scheme to be given pension and that the same is denied to him despite the fact that he satisfied all the criteria.
3. The respondents have filed an affidavit denying the claim of the petitioner mainly on two grounds. The first being that the last date for receiving applications under the said scheme was 31st March, 1982 and that application had to be through the State Government supported by documentary evidence. But in the case of the petitioner the application was received as late as 23rd August, 1983. The second contention which is taken by the respondents is that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner after being initially arrested continued to remain in custody.
4. As far as the first objection raised by the respondent is concerned, we had an occasion to deal with an identical question raised by the respondents in Writ Petition No. 3706 of 1993 in which we delivered judgment on 30th September, 1996, inter alia, holding in favour of the petitioner therein by following the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mukundlal Bhandari v. Union of India, reported in : 1990CriLJ2148 , wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with very same scheme held that instead of waiting for freedom fighters to apply for the scheme, the Government if it is possible to do so, should find out freedom fighters or their dependents and approach them with the pension instead requiring them to make applications for the same as that would be in the true spirit of working out such scheme. Naturally the Supreme Court rejected the plea raised by the Central Government as to the claim therein being beyond time. In this view of the matter, we do not think any further discussion is necessary in respect of this objection and the same is thus rejected.
5. As far as the second objection viz. that the petitioner has not produced any record to show that he had undergone imprisonment for more than six months is concerned, we are rather surprised that the respondents should have taken such a plea. The petitioner has annexed copy of the letter dated 15th October, 1984 addressed by the General Administration Department of the State Government to the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India along with which the applications and the necessary documents were forwarded to the respondents. The said letter in categorical terms states that on verification of the requisite documents received through the Collector of Pune it was observed that the petitioner satisfied the conditions for grant of pension from the Central Government and hence the State Government recommended the petitioner's case. It further stated that the petitioner's case had been scrutinised by the High Power Committee appointed by the State Government under its G.R. dated 12th April, 1983. In these circumstance, we wonder as to how the Central Government came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not forwarded the necessary document and that he did not satisfy the criteria laid down by the said scheme. We cannot resist the temptation of repeating the words of the Supreme Court in the above mentioned decision wherein the Supreme Court had in fact held that instead of waiting for freedom fighters to apply for the scheme the Government if it is possible to do so, should find out freedom fighter or their dependents and approach them with the pension instead of requiring them to make applications for the same as that would be in the true spirit of working out such a scheme. Surely the Central Government if it had taken pains would have seen that the very fact that the State Government had scrutinised the application of the petitioner and had recommended the same as stated in its letter dated 15th October, 1984 in fact dispensed with further detailed verification on the part of the Central Government. In this view of the matter, we do not see any substance in this objection also.
6. In our opinion, the petitioner has made out a case for being granted the pension under the scheme. It is obvious from the material produced by the petitioner that he satisfies all the criteria laid down under the scheme. He has undergone imprisonment for more than six months. In fact, for a period of 9 months and 21 days the petitioner was in jail. This he has done while participating in the freedom movement. The petitioner is today more than 70 years of age. Cases of freedom fighters require sympathetic considered liberty for the country more important than their personal liberty. But for their sacrifices this country would not have attained freedom. This fact need not be repeatedly emphasised. It is in appreciation of such sacrifices that the State Government as well as the Central Government have though it fit to frame such pension scheme. The very object of such scheme would be defeated if hyper-technical views are taken. Time and again this Court has come across such matters and, therefore, we think it necessary to deprecate such attitude being adopted by the authorities concerned. In fact all possible efforts must be made to trace out such persons by apt publicity to make such persons aware of such schemes. They should be convinced that this country has not forgotten them and their sacrifices have not gone in vain. They should be further convinced, which can be done only if the authorities realise the spirit underlying such scheme, that the benefits under the scheme are in appreciation of their sacrifices and not alms doled out. May be the lack of appreciation of the spirit underlying the schemes, as is evident from the attitude of the authorities, has scared away these freedom fighters. We have, therefore, thought it fit to give certain directions.
7. In view of the above petition requires to be and is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition. The respondents are directed to pay all the arrears of pension to the petitioner within a period of four months from today failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest thereon at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. Moreover, as the respondents have without any rhyme or reason deprived the petitioner of the pension which rightly should have been paid to him and for having put him to the trouble of approaching this Hon'ble Court, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice the respondents be made to pay costs which we fix at Rs. 5,000/-. This cost also should be paid within four months from today. We further direct that Central Government should review all those cases which it has rejected. If these are rejected purely on the ground of limitation/delay, the Central Government should without any hesitation and delay contact these persons and make available to them the benefits of the scheme. This is the least the authorities can do after depriving such persons of their right to receive these benefits.
8. Thus the petition made absolute as above. Rule made absolute with cost as indicated above. Certified copy expedited.
Petition allowed.