Judgment:
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the letters dated 6th October, 1981, 3rd January, 1983 and 29th July, 1986, whereby the respondent No.1 rejected the applications filed by the petitioners praying for grant of freedom fighter pension to the petitioners.
2. The petitioners have contended that they were the employees of the Delhi Police and were posted at Police Lines in March, 1946. Around that time a police revolt took place which was popularly known as Delhi Police Revolt which was directed against the British Empire. It is stated that the petitioners participated in the said revolt and a criminal case was also instituted against the petitioners in pursuance of filing of an FIR under the defense of India Rules and the service of the petitioners were terminated. All the petitioners rely upon the scheme of the Central Government for awarding pension to freedom fighters and their families from the Central Revenue and state that the aforesaid revolt namely Delhi Police Revolt was also a part of the freedom movement and, thereforee, they are entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid scheme of the Central Government.
3. The petitioners also submitted their application for grant of the aforesaid pension and also submitted documents in support of their claims to the Competent Authority. The Committee constituted by the Haryana Government considered the application of the petitioner No.1 and the said Committee found the petitioner No.1 to be a genuine freedom fighter. Since, however, there was a Central Government circular whereunder it was instructed that the aforesaid Delhi Police Revolt could not be considered as a part of the freedom movement, the Committee did not take any final decision and requested for a clarification from the Central Government the issue.
4. The Central Government however, took a decision that the petitioner No.1 as also the other three petitioners are not entitled to the grant of the aforesaid pension in view of the fact that the aforesaid revolt which was in the nature of a strike could not be accepted as part of the national freedom struggle. While coming to the aforesaid decision the Central Gov-ernment relied upon the Circular dated 9th February, 1983 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, which contains the decision of the Advisory Committee that the strike in the nature of Delhi Police Revolt could not be accepted as a part of the national freedom struggle. It further appears from the said notification that the Central Government came to the aforesaid decision noting the fact that in 1946 interim Government was already functioning and modalities of transfer of power in the Indian hands were already being discussed and during that period there was no question of any struggle for the purpose of freedom of the country. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions of the Central Government, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
5. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed their respective counter affidavits contending, inter alias that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief as sought for in view of the fact that the Delhi Police Strike/Revolt has not been recognised as part of the freedom struggle. The respondent No.1, the Central Government, while justifying its stand that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the Central Pension Scheme stated that the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme is applicable to those cases where the suffering is in connection with the involvement in the freedom struggle. It is also stated that the Delhi Police Strike/Revolt in 1946 in which the petitioners were involved has not been recognised as a part of the freedom struggle. The list of the recognised movements/mutinies for the purpose of extending the benefit of pension scheme has also been annexed by the respondent No.1 Along with the counter affidavit.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as also Ms. Alpana Poddar, Counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
7. The petitioners in support of their contention have placed on record certain certificates and letters issued by freedom fighters and Members of Parliament which are annexed as Annexure 'I' to Annexure 'N'. Some of the said certificates and letter disclose that the Delhi Police Strike/Revolt and procession took place on 22nd March, 1946 and that the FIR lodged in connection with the said cases would amply prove that the raising was a part of the national movement.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the aforesaid documents were placed even before the Central Government which were not taken note of in their proper perspective. So far the Haryana Government is concerned, the records disclose that at least so far, the petitioner No.1 is concerned, the Committee Constituted by the Haryana Government prima facie held him to be a genuine freedom fighters. The only ground on which the request of the petitioners for grant of the aforesaid pension was rejected appears to be that the aforesaid Delhi Police Strike/Revolt in which the petitioners actively participated could not be a accepted as a part of the national freedom struggle. The ground of which the Central Government came to the aforesaid conclusion is also disclosed in the aforesaid letter dated 9th February, 1983 wherein it is stated that in 1946 when the aforesaid strike had taken place, interim Government was also functioning and modalities of transfer of power in the Indian hands were already being discussed and, thereforee, during that period there was no question of any struggle for the purpose of freedom of the country.
9. However, on perusal of the list of the recognised movements/mutinies as annexed by the respondent No.1 with its counter affidavit, it appears that the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny has been accepted as recognised movement for the purpose of grant of the aforesaid pension. Interestingly, the said mutiny had also taken place in the year 1946. Since one of the mutinies which has been recognised by the Central Government as a recognised movement or mutiny had been taken place in 1946, the decision of the Central Government that no such benefit could not be given to the persons who took part in the Delhi Police Revolt/Strike on the ground that in or about 1946 there could not have been any struggle for the purpose of freedom of the country prima facie appears to be a self contradictory stand to that of recognising Royal Indian Navy Mutiny of 1946 as a recognised movement/mutiny. This is, however, a prima facie view taken by me for, it is not possible to come to any definite conclusion by this Court on such disputed questions of fact at this stage.
10. thereforee, I consider this to be an appropriate case where the Central Government should reconsider the entire matter as also the representations of the petitioners filed before it for grant of such pension to the petitioners. While reconsidering the entire matter, the Central Government would take note of the fact that a mutiny which had occurred in 1946 has already been recognised as a part of the freedom movement by the Central Government and included in the list of recognised movements/mutinies for grant of such pension. The Central Government shall also while giving its decision take note of the various letters and certificates issued by freedom fighters and Members of Parliament who are recognised authorities under the scheme for issuance of such certificates and given due weightage to the contents thereof.
11. This matter is, thereforee, remitted back to the Central Government for a decision on the issue as to whether participation by the petitioners in the Delhi Police Strike/Revolt in 1946 would come within the purview of the national movement/freedom struggle and would justify extending the benefit of grant of the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension to the petitioners or not. The Central Government shall decide the aforesaid issues on the basis of the representation filed by the petitioners enclosing therewith various certificates/letters of the Members of Parliament and other functionaries and dispose of the said representation by giving a reasoned order. If need be, the petitioners shall file copies of the representations before the Central Government once again, if called for. The decision shall be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that none of the aforesaid observations shall be construed as any opinion on the merit of the case either way and that the Central Government while deciding the matter would be free come to its conclusions.
12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court in future if they are still aggrieved by the decision of the Central Government in this respect.
13. Let a copy of this order be given dusty to the Counsel for the parties.