Judgment:
1. These writ petitions are disposed of by a common order as in all the petitions it has been prayed that the Union of India be directed to place the applications for grant of Freedom Fighters' pension before the Screening Committee constituted by the Government for the purpose.
2. This Court has entertained petitions in hundreds in the past and now fresh petitions have been filed. Earlier this Court passed orders in the petitions when no counter was filed. When those petitions were taken up the Court was informed that the Screening Committee was in existence, therefore the Court directed in all those matters that theapplications of the petitioners be placed before the Screening Committee. When these matters came up before this Court, the Court was informed that the Screening Committee is no longer in existence, therefore respondents were directed to file counter. A counter has been filed which has been adopted for all the petitions.
3. The Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme was promulgated in the year 1972 by the Central Government. It was re-named as 'Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980'' in the year 1980 and was promulgated on 15-8-81 with effect from 1st August, 1980. This lays down the criteria for grant of pension and also the method of grant of pension. It also lays down as to what are the movements/mutinies connected with National Freedom Struggle. Clause-4 of the scheme lays down the eligibility criteria. It appears that the petitioners who have approached this Court are not eligible strictly in accordance with Clause-4 of the scheme. It also appears that it had caught the attention of the Government of India that certain persons who had fought for freedom and participated in the Freedom movement in former Nizam State of Hyderabad for its integration with the Indian Union were finding it difficult to show that they were entitled to pension in terms of the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. Therefore, an office memorandum was issued by Bharat Sarkar on 5ih of October,1983. The Memorandum notices the difficulty suffered by the Freedom Fighters who belonged to erstwhile Nizam State of Hyderabad in getting the pension under the 1980 scheme. This order further lays down that the applications from persons belonging to erstwhile Nizam State of Hyderabad will be scrutinised and screened by a Special Screening Committee. This special committee was constituted by the same order. The Deputy Secretary in charge of the Freedom Fighters' Division in the Ministry of Home Affairs was nominated as Convenor of the Committee. It was further laid down that the Committee will decide its own procedure. Again an order was passed on 17th December, 1996expressing the same difficulties which were expressed in the order of 5th October, 1983 with respect to the persons who had fought in the Nizam State of Hyderabad and to remove the difficulties another Committee was constituted. The Committee was asked to dispose of all pending applications by 31st of March 1997. So, in terms of this order the committee had to remain in existence upto 31st March,1997. Yet another order was passed on 3rd June, 1997 by which the tenure of the Special Screening Committee was extended upto December31st, 1997. All these orders suggest that the Government of India had taken a decision that the committee will remain in existence upto 31st of December, 1997 and dispose of the applications presented before it. The task for the Committee was only to scrutinise the applications whereas the power to grant or refuse the applications remained with the Government of India, The Government has passed yet another order on 22nd January, 1998. By this order the term of the Special Screening Committee has been extended for 45 days beginning on 1st January, 1998 and the Committee's tenure shall come to an end on 14th February, 1998. The petitioners case is that, the Screening Committee should consider the applications of the petitioners as well whereas the respondents submit that the tenure of the Committee has already ended on 31st of December, 1997 and its term has only been extended upto 14th February, 1998 for considering those cases in which orders had been passed by the Court upto 31st December, 1997, therefore the applications of the petitioners cannot be considered by the Committee.
4. The learned standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that petitioners are at liberty to move applications in accordance with the scheme of 1980 and if such applications are made or have already been made, the Government of India is bound to decide them in accordance with the norms prescribed by the scheme itself. He further states that there is no need to refer these matters to the Screening Committee because the Screening Committee remained inexistence for number of years and the petitioners did not approach for all these years and there is no justification for extending the life of the Committee. He further states that the purpose of establishing the committee was to come over the difficulties suffered by the people who had participated in the struggle against erstwhile Nizam and who could not get evidence as prescribed under the scheme of 1980. The Special Scheme by which the Screening Committee was constituted was also constituted in the year 1983 and this Committee cannot remain in existence forever. He has further stated that the members of the Committee are the Freedom Fighters and all of them are elderly people. It has been stated before me that the youngest member of the present committee is of 74 years of age. The Counsel further states that these persons cannot be forced to do a job and they have been nice and voluntarily done the job even at the advanced stages of their life.
5. Now the question before the Court is whether the term of the committee can be ordered to be extended by this Court or not.
6. There is a scheme promulgated by the Government of India in the year 1980 known as 'Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme,1980'. There was a cut off date for making applications in this scheme. But, the Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, : 1990CriLJ2148 rejected the concept of limitations and cut off date as far as pension to Freedom Fighters' was concerned. The Supreme Court was of the view that the scheme was introduced to assist and honour those who had given the best of their life for independence therefore they should not be told that they were late in making applications. In fact Supreme Court was of the view that it was the responsibility of the Government to search Freedom Fighters and reach to them with the Samman by way of pension. Therefore, in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, (supra) it cannot be said that the petitioners did not move in time and therefore their casescannot be considered. It is true that the Counsel for respondents has stated lhat the applications of the writ petitioners shall be considered in accordance with the Scheme of 1980. Had the petitioners been able to substantiate that they were Freedom Fighters in accordance with the norms laid down in the Scheme of 1980, then probably they would have not come to this Court and in that case there was no need to appoint a Screening Committee. The Screening Committee was appointed only to help those persons who were not able to substantiate in accordance with the norms of the Scheme of 1980. But, I am conscious of the limitations of this Court that this Court cannot direct constitution of a committee or even extension of its life particularly when the members of the committee are elderly persons. The nature of the job that the committee is required to do demands that the people of elder age must be members of the committee. After all they have to certify and scrutinise that a person who applied was a Freedom Fighter and he has played a role in the Freedom struggle before 1947. I am told that the youngest person in the committee was aged 74 years. Therefore, this Court cannot force them to continue to do the job which was assigned to them. This Court cannot at all force such persons to continue to be the members of the Committee. However, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court it is abundant duty of the respondents to entertain and dispose of all the applications moved before them and provide a Forum to the petitioners to substantiate that they were Freedom Fighters. A note has been placed before me by the learned Counsel for the Government, which is in fact prepared by Deputy Secretary to Government concerned for the Counsel in order to prepare a Caveat in this Court Para 4 of the note says :
'4. Para 2 of the Resolution passed by the Screening Committee states that the deserving cases have been recommended and the purpose for which the Committee was set up is served. In view of this resolution there are hardly any more deserving cases left. If any deserving caseis found not considered the Government of India may dispose such case in consultation with the Chairman/Members of the Committee in their individual capacity as leaders of the movement. For disposal of such few cases as may be stitl left the continuation of the Screening Committee is not necessary. The Chairman/members are very old people (the youngest member is 74 years old) and there is little justification to force them to leave their place of residence and family to come to New Delhi for attending such meetings at fag end of their lives.'
I think, this is one of the suggestions which has come from the Committee itself that in case of deserving applicant the Government of India may dispose of such application in consultation with the Chairman or a member of the Committee in his individual capacity as leader of the movement.
7. Keeping in view the mandate of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari 's case (supra), and keeping in view the limitations of this Court with regard to grant of extension in the life of the Committee, I am of the view that Union of India has to be directed to devise methods to scrutinise the applications of the petitioners so that the genuine people get benefited by the scheme of 1980.
8. With this view, I dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions:
(1) That the respondents are bound to consider all the applications moved before it including the applications moved by the petitioners.
(2) That the Government shall consider the possibility of extending the term of the Committee and in case the term of the Committee is extended it shall notify and publicise in all local news papers, through Radio and Television the last date upto which the Committee wilt function so that any deserving person who has not applied so far applies. Incase the term of the committee is extended the applicants shall be given the liberty to move the applications directly to the Chairman of the Committee.
(3) If the Government decides not to extend the tenure of the Committee, then they shall devise a method for screening the applications of all applicants who claim that they had participated in the freedom movement in the erstwhile Nizam State of Hyderabad. In this connection the mode suggested by the Committee itself which has been reproduced hereinabove be also taken into consideration. If any other methodology is adopted, that shall also be given wide publicity so that all concerned become aware of such a method and,
(4) The Union of India should also fix reasonable time in which an application made by a person claiming to be Freedom Fighter for grant of pension should be disposed of
9. With these directions these writ petitions are disposed of. No. Order as to costs.