Ram Sumiran Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution - pension of freedom fighter - clause 2 of u.p. swatantrata sangram senaniyon aur unke parivaron ko diye jane wale anudan tatha swatantrata sangram pension sambandhi niyam - 83 years old freedom fighter not getting pension since 1994 - pension sanctioned by the president of india for life - sufficient evidence of imprisonment at the time of freedom fight - court awarded special cost of rs. 5000/- - order to pay amount in arrears with interest within two months. - - we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel and perused the documents on record. the main part of the rules clearly speaks that any person who had taken part in the freedom movement and had been in jail for a minimum period of two months, will be known as freedom fighter. this letter clearly goes to show that the petitioner was considered and was held to be freedom tighter for all purposes by the central government. what is more, if the scheme has been introduced with the genuine desire to assist and honour those who had given the best part of their life for the country, it ill behaves the government to raise pleas of limitation against such claims. the top line gives number as 4863 z/6-b-89-246/73. this figure clearly indicates that the file of the petitioner was opened in the year 1973. on the basis of this entry the court can safelyconclude that the application was moved by the petitioner in the year 1973. the rules which have been framed by the state govt. therefore, it would be better if this exercise is done by the slale govt.orderk. c. bhargava, j.1. the petitionerwho is 83 years old freedom fighter had to knock the door of this court in order to get freedom fighter's pension. the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 20-12-1994 passed by the dy. secretary, u. p. govt. as contained in annexure-13.2. the petitioner has alleged himself to be a freedom-fighter and is entitled to the pension under the 'uttar pradesh swatantrata sangram senaniyon aur unke parivaron ko diye jane wale anudan tatha swatantrata sangram pension sambandhi niyam.' the petitioner has taken part in the freedom of the country and participated with the same along with late pt. jawahar lal nehru and late mahatma gandhi. the petitioner was arrested from the meeting which was held on 28th march, 1941 and was sent to district jail, faizabad. he remained in district jail, faizabad from 2-4-1941 to 23-5-1941. on 2-4-1941 he was punished under section 38(5) (121 )of defence of india rules for one month's r.i. and to pay a fine of rs. 30/- and in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further r.i. for one month, copy of that order is annexure-1 to the writ petition. annexure-2 is certificate issued by the superintendent jail, faizabad on 17-5-1961 certifying the period of detention of the petitioner in jail. when the petitioner came out of the jail, he was again arrested with some posters and letters and was detained in jail under the defence of india rules and was punished for 6 mpnths' r.i. and to pay a fine of rs.30/- and in default he was ordered to undergo further r. i. for one and a half month. the petitioner has to remain in jail from 4-6-1941 to 28-12-1941. a certificate to that effect was, issued to the petitioner by the superintendent jail, faizabad on 20-9-1973, copy of which is annexure-3 to the writ petition.3. it is alleged that the petitioner was enrolled in military service in dogra regiment as hawaldar on 20th october, 1942 but his services were discharged on 15th february, 1943. it is alleged that on 3-12-1973 the petilioner moved an application along with certificate for grant of pension from central revenue to freedom fighters and his family to govt. of india. the president of india was pleased to sanction pension at rs. 200/- per month for life since january 1974. copy of the sanction letter is annexure-5 to the writ petition.4. in 1975 rules were framed by the state of uttar pradesh as have been mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. these rules were implemented since 6th august. 1975. copy of these rules is contained in annexure-6 to the writ petition. the petitioner falls within the definition of freedom fighter as mentioned in those rules. the petitioner moved an application to the state government for the sanction of pension as freedom fighter in the year 1973, but that application was not decided by the state government in spite of a number of reminders being sent by the petitioner. the petitioner also met the concerned secretary, but nothing came out of that meeting. the fact that the petitioner applied in the year 1973 for sanction of pension to the state govt. is borne out from the top line of annexure-9, which is a letter written by dy. secretary to govt. u. p.5. an identity card was issued by the state govt. on 19th january, 1976 under the signature of the director, swatantrata sangram senani kalyan parishad, u. p., lucknow, photostat copy of which is annexure-7. this shows that the state govt. recognised the petitioner as freedom fighter. the state govt. thereafter asked the district magistrate, faizabad for verification of the certificate filed by the petitioner. the district magistrate in his turn asked the superintendent district jail, faizabad for verification. the superintendent district jail, faizabad in his letter dated 16-7-88, copy of which is annexure-8 to the writ petition, mentioned that the register of that period has been destroyed, therefore, certificate could not be verified.6. thereafter another application was moved to the state govt. with full particulars and the stale govt. again asked the district magistrate for verification of the term of imprisonment undergone by the petitioner. thereafter the district magistrate asked the superintendent district jail, faizabad for verification and report. copies of these letters are annexures 9 and 10 to the writ petition. the superintendent, district jail, faizabad sent his report to the district magistrate that verification of the certificate submitted by the petitioner for the period 4th june, 1941 to 23rd december, 1941, could not be verified because the record of d.i.r. has been destroyed for that period. he has however mentioned that the name of the petitioner is available on the 'smriti patal' in jail, which is in regard to the honour of freedomfighters. it is installed in the jail premises. if the record has been destroyed by the state govt., the petitioner cannot suffer on that account.7. sufficient opportunity was given to the opposite parties to file the counter-affidavit, but counter affidavit has not been filed till today even in spite of the court's direction to that effect on 3rd january 1996. learned standing counsel prays for more time to file counter-affidavit which under the facts of the case cannot be granted. we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel and perused the documents on record.8. learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the year 1973 the petitioner has moved an application to the slate govt, for grant of freedom fighters pension. according to the learned state counsel it was moved in the year 1980. he submitted that the petitioner could not get his pension as record is not available with the jail authorities at faizabad. he has further argued on the basis of rules framed by the state govt. that the petitioner is not covered by those rules and as such he is not entitled to the freedom fighters' pension.9. the last objection raised by the learned state counsel may be taken up first. a copy of the rules framed by the state govt. is contained in annexurc-6 to the writ petition. the rules are known as 'swatantrata sangram senaniyon aur unke parivaron ko diye jane wale anudan tatha swatantrata sangram pension sambandhi niyam.' a perusal of these rules will go to show that freedom fighter is a person who has taken part in the freedom movement and had been in jail for a minimum period of two months. on the basis of the illustrations given in clause (2) of these rules, learned state counsel has argued that the petitioner is not covered by any of the explanations given in these rules. the illustrations given under the said rule do not exclude the other category, hut they include these categories also in the category of the definition given in the main part of these rules. the main part of the rules clearly speaks that any person who had taken part in the freedom movement and had been in jail for a minimum period of two months, will be known as freedom fighter. it is not necessary for this court to go into the illustrations and find out whether the petitioner is covered by those illustrations or not because these illustrations will be covered by themain definition given in clause (2) of the rules. therefore, this contention of the learned state counsel has to be rejected.10. now we come to the documentary evidence which has been placed on record by the petitioner. according to the petitioner he has been granted pension even by the central government. for this purpose reference may be made to a letter of the central govt. dated 14th june, 1974 issued by the dy. secretary to the govt. of india, copy of which is contained in annexure-5. this letter deals with the grant of pension to the freedom fighters. the petitioner's application dated 3-12-73 was considered and the president of india was pleased to sanction rs. 200/- per month on provisional basis w.e.f. 1 -1 -74. this pension was granted to the petitioner for life. this letter clearly goes to show that the petitioner was considered and was held to be freedom tighter for all purposes by the central government. once the petitioner has been recognised-as a freedom fighter by the central govt., it does not appeal to reason why he will not be a freedom fighter for the state government. we have already referred to the rules and the case of the petitioner is covered by those rules. besides, there is ample evidence on record to show that the state govt. has recognised the petitioner as freedom fighter. it has already been mentioned during statement of facts that the petitioner had been in jail in two parts, one for one month and the other for six months. these facts may be found in annexures 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition. even by the certificate dated 24-2-90 issued by the superintendent district jail, faizabad, contained in annexure-11 it is confirmed that the petitioner remained in jail for more than six months from 4-6-41 to 23-12-41 in connection with defence of india rules. last part of this certificate mentions that the name of the petitioner finds place on the smriti patal' which is related to the freedom fighters. this certificate concludes the controversy that the petitioner is a freedom lighter and he remained in jail for a period of more than six months, and his name is to be found on the 'smriti patal'. it cannot be said that the name of the petitioner on the smriti patal was inscribed later on or was not initially inscribed when the petitioner remained in jail.11. annexure-7 is a identity card issued by swatantrata sangram senani kalyan parishad, u. p., lucknow. it bears serial no. 8667 and was issued by the director/secretary on 19-1 -76. thishas been issued ill-view of the letter no. 1407 7 z/ 6-76-43 g/76 sent by dy. secretary to the govt. of u. p. to all the district magistrates and head of the departments on 10th of march, 1976. this is a short letter of three parats and it says that identity cards be issued by the said kalyan parishad to all the freedom fighters who are entitled to get pension under the rules and the purpose for which this identity card is to be utilized has also been dealt with in this letter. it further mentions that this identity card will serve as a proof of freedom fighter and no other evidence may be required by any authority of the state govt. this identity card bears the seal of the state govt. u has also been verified by the treasury officer, faizabad. this is a conclusive proof that the petitioner is a freedom fighter and has been detained in jail and is entitled to pension in accordance with the rules framed by the state govt. in the year 1975.12. learned standing counsel has placed reliance on letters, copies of which are annexures 9 and 10 in order to show that the records relating to the petitioner are not available in the district jail and as such the facts could not be verified. in these letters it is merely mentioned that there is no details of the prison suffered by the petitioner. in annexure-13, which is also a letter by the dy. secretary dated 1-12-74, it has come for the first time that details could not be verified for want of availability of the records and the application of the petitioner has been rejected on that basis, no reliance can be placed on these letters and pension cannot be denied to the petitioner on the basis of these letters because the other documents available on the record, which have been mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, are sufficient to prove that the petitioner is a freedom fighter and is entitled to the pension as such.13. learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to a judgment of the apex court in a case of mukund lal bhandari v. union of india, reported in 1995 (13) lucknow civil decisions 820. in that case a plea was raised by the government that the application was moved by the petitioner after the prescribed date. dealing with his matter the hon'ble supreme court has observed as under:--'as regards the contention that the petitioners had filed their applications after the date prescribed in that behalf, we are afraid that the government stand is not justifiable. it is common knowledge that those who participated in thefreedom struggle either at the national level or in the erstwhile nizam state, are scattered all over the country and most of them may even be inhabiting the remotest parts of the rural areas. what is more, almost all of them must have now grown pretty old, if they are alive. where the freedom fighters are not alive and their widow and the unmarried daughters have to prefer claims, the position may still be worse with regard to their knowledge of the prescribed date. what is more, if the scheme has been introduced with the genuine desire to assist and honour those who had given the best part of their life for the country, it ill behaves the government to raise pleas of limitation against such claims. in fact, the government, if it is possible for them to do so, should find out the freedom fighters or their dependents and approach them with pension instead of requiring them to make applications for the same. that would be the true spirit of working out such schemes. the scheme has rightly been renamed in 1985 as the swatantra sainik samman pension scheme in accordance with its object. we, therefore, cannot countenance the plea of the government that the claimants would only be entitled to the benefit of the scheme if they made applications before a particular date notwithstanding that in fact they had suffered the imprisonment and made the sacrifices and were thus otherwise qualified to receive the benefit. we are, therefore, of the view that whatever the date on which the claimants make the applications, the benefit should be made available to them. the date prescribed in any past or future notice inviting the claims, should be regarded more as a matter of administrative convenience than as a rigid lime-limit.'14. in view of that has been stated above, it is proved from the record that the petitioner is a freedom fighter and is entitled to the pension. according to the petitioner he had moved application for grant of pension in the year 1973 while according to the learned standing counsel it was moved sometimes in 1980. the fact that the application was moved in the year 1973 is also proved from the top line of annexure-9, which is a letter issued by the dy. secretary to the govt. of u. p. addressed to the district magistrate, faizabad. the top line gives number as 4863 z/6-b-89-246/73. this figure clearly indicates that the file of the petitioner was opened in the year 1973. on the basis of this entry the court can safelyconclude that the application was moved by the petitioner in the year 1973. the rules which have been framed by the state govt. were framed in the year 1976 and were enforced from 6th august, 1975. therefore, the petitioner shall be entitled to get freedom fighters' pension from 6th august, 1975.15. so far as the quantum of pension is concerned, it is for the state govt. to fix the quantum of pension to be paid to the petitioner. according to the learned counsel for the petitioner monthly pension was granted to some of the freedom fighters @ rs. 60 and to others @ 100/-. the court is not in a position to fix the quantum of pension. therefore, it would be better if this exercise is done by the slale govt. when the pension is fixed by the stale govt., then the petitioner shall get interest on the amount of pension also. the pension fixed by the state government w.e.f. 6th august 1975 will be subject to all benefits which have been granted from time to time by the state govt. to other freedom fighters.16. now considering the fact that the slate govt. has not granted any pension to the petitioner since 1975 and has dragged him to the court. the petitioner being on old man of 83 years has been deprived of the pension for no fault of his, though he had submitted application and a number of reminders to the state govt. but even then the state govt. has not granted pension to the petitioner, which shows callousness with which the petitioner has been treated by the state govt. in order to compensate the petitioner, the court fixes an amount of rs. 5000/- as special costs.17. in view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is allowed. the order dated 20-12-94 contained in annexure-13 is hereby quashed. the petitioner is entitled to freedom fighters' pension to be fixed by the state govt. in accordance with the provisions of the rules w.e.f. 6th august, 1975. the quantum of pension shall be fixed within a period of two months from today. the petitioner shall be paid interest at the rate of 7 1/2% from 6-8-1975 to 31-12-80, at the rale of 10% from, 1 -1 -1981 to 31st december, 1989 and at the rate of 12% from 1-1-1990 till the arrears of pension are paid. the amount of pension and arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within the next two months. pension in future shall be paidby the state and when it falls due. a sum of rs. 5000/- is awarded special costs which shall be deposited in court by the state within two months from today and the petitioner will be entitled to withdraw that amount as special costs.18. petition allowed.

Judgment:
ORDER

K. C. Bhargava, J.

1. The petitionerwho is 83 years old freedom fighter had to knock the door of this Court in order to get freedom fighter's pension. The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 20-12-1994 passed by the Dy. Secretary, U. P. Govt. as contained in Annexure-13.

2. The petitioner has alleged himself to be a freedom-fighter and is entitled to the pension under the 'Uttar Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Senaniyon Aur Unke Parivaron Ko Diye Jane Wale Anudan Tatha Swatantrata Sangram Pension Sambandhi Niyam.' The petitioner has taken part in the freedom of the country and participated with the same along with late Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru and late Mahatma Gandhi. The petitioner was arrested from the meeting which was held on 28th March, 1941 and was sent to District Jail, Faizabad. He remained in District Jail, Faizabad from 2-4-1941 to 23-5-1941. On 2-4-1941 he was punished under Section 38(5) (121 )of Defence of India Rules for one month's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 30/- and in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further R.I. for one month, Copy of that order is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Annexure-2 is certificate issued by the Superintendent Jail, Faizabad on 17-5-1961 certifying the period of detention of the petitioner in jail. When the petitioner came out of the jail, he was again arrested with some posters and letters and was detained in jail under the Defence of India Rules and was punished for 6 mpnths' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.30/- and in default he was ordered to undergo further R. I. for one and a half month. The petitioner has to remain in jail from 4-6-1941 to 28-12-1941. A certificate to that effect was, issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent Jail, Faizabad on 20-9-1973, copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

3. It is alleged that the petitioner was enrolled in Military service in Dogra Regiment as Hawaldar on 20th October, 1942 but his services were discharged on 15th February, 1943. It is alleged that on 3-12-1973 the petilioner moved an application along with certificate for grant of pension from central revenue to freedom fighters and his family to Govt. of India. The President of India was pleased to sanction pension at Rs. 200/- per month for life since January 1974. Copy of the sanction letter is Annexure-5 to the writ petition.

4. In 1975 rules were framed by the State of Uttar Pradesh as have been mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. These rules were implemented since 6th August. 1975. Copy of these rules is contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The petitioner falls within the definition of freedom fighter as mentioned in those rules. The petitioner moved an application to the State Government for the sanction of pension as freedom fighter in the year 1973, but that application was not decided by the State Government in spite of a number of reminders being sent by the petitioner. The petitioner also met the concerned secretary, but nothing came out of that meeting. The fact that the petitioner applied in the year 1973 for sanction of pension to the State Govt. is borne out from the top line of Annexure-9, which is a letter written by Dy. Secretary to Govt. U. P.

5. An identity card was issued by the State Govt. on 19th January, 1976 under the signature of the Director, Swatantrata Sangram Senani Kalyan Parishad, U. P., Lucknow, Photostat copy of which is Annexure-7. This shows that the State Govt. recognised the petitioner as freedom fighter. The State Govt. thereafter asked the District Magistrate, Faizabad for verification of the certificate filed by the petitioner. The District Magistrate in his turn asked the Superintendent District Jail, Faizabad for verification. The Superintendent District Jail, Faizabad in his letter dated 16-7-88, copy of which is Annexure-8 to the writ petition, mentioned that the register of that period has been destroyed, therefore, certificate could not be verified.

6. Thereafter another application was moved to the State Govt. with full particulars and the Stale Govt. again asked the District Magistrate for verification of the term of imprisonment undergone by the petitioner. Thereafter the District Magistrate asked the Superintendent District Jail, Faizabad for verification and report. Copies of these letters are Annexures 9 and 10 to the writ petition. The Superintendent, District Jail, Faizabad sent his report to the District Magistrate that verification of the certificate submitted by the petitioner for the period 4th June, 1941 to 23rd December, 1941, could not be verified because the record of D.I.R. has been destroyed for that period. He has however mentioned that the name of the petitioner is available on the 'Smriti Patal' in jail, which is in regard to the honour of freedomfighters. It is installed in the jail premises. If the record has been destroyed by the State Govt., the petitioner cannot suffer on that account.

7. Sufficient opportunity was given to the opposite parties to file the counter-affidavit, but counter affidavit has not been filed till today even in spite of the Court's direction to that effect on 3rd January 1996. Learned Standing Counsel prays for more time to file counter-affidavit which under the facts of the case cannot be granted. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel and perused the documents on record.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the year 1973 the petitioner has moved an application to the Slate Govt, for grant of freedom fighters pension. According to the learned State counsel it was moved in the year 1980. He submitted that the petitioner could not get his pension as record is not available with the jail authorities at Faizabad. He has further argued on the basis of rules framed by the State Govt. that the petitioner is not covered by those rules and as such he is not entitled to the freedom fighters' pension.

9. The last objection raised by the learned State counsel may be taken up first. A copy of the rules framed by the State Govt. is contained in Annexurc-6 to the writ petition. The Rules are known as 'Swatantrata Sangram Senaniyon Aur Unke Parivaron Ko Diye Jane Wale Anudan Tatha Swatantrata Sangram Pension Sambandhi Niyam.' A perusal of these rules will go to show that freedom fighter is a person who has taken part in the freedom movement and had been in jail for a minimum period of two months. On the basis of the illustrations given in Clause (2) of these rules, learned State Counsel has argued that the petitioner is not covered by any of the explanations given in these rules. The illustrations given under the said rule do not exclude the other category, hut they include these categories also in the category of the definition given in the main part of these rules. The main part of the rules clearly speaks that any person who had taken part in the freedom movement and had been in jail for a minimum period of two months, will be known as freedom fighter. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the illustrations and find out whether the petitioner is covered by those illustrations or not because these illustrations will be covered by themain definition given in Clause (2) of the rules. Therefore, this contention of the learned State counsel has to be rejected.

10. Now we come to the documentary evidence which has been placed on record by the petitioner. According to the petitioner he has been granted pension even by the Central Government. For this purpose reference may be made to a letter of the Central Govt. dated 14th June, 1974 issued by the Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of India, copy of which is contained in Annexure-5. This letter deals with the grant of pension to the freedom fighters. The petitioner's application dated 3-12-73 was considered and the President of India was pleased to sanction Rs. 200/- per month on provisional basis w.e.f. 1 -1 -74. This pension was granted to the petitioner for life. This letter clearly goes to show that the petitioner was considered and was held to be freedom tighter for all purposes by the Central Government. Once the petitioner has been recognised-as a freedom fighter by the Central Govt., it does not appeal to reason why he will not be a freedom fighter for the State Government. We have already referred to the rules and the case of the petitioner is covered by those rules. Besides, there is ample evidence on record to show that the State Govt. has recognised the petitioner as freedom fighter. It has already been mentioned during statement of facts that the petitioner had been in jail in two parts, one for one month and the other for six months. These facts may be found in Annexures 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition. Even by the certificate dated 24-2-90 issued by the Superintendent District Jail, Faizabad, contained in Annexure-11 it is confirmed that the petitioner remained in jail for more than six months from 4-6-41 to 23-12-41 in connection with Defence of India Rules. Last part of this certificate mentions that the name of the petitioner finds place on the Smriti Patal' which is related to the freedom fighters. This certificate concludes the controversy that the petitioner is a freedom lighter and he remained in jail for a period of more than six months, and his name is to be found on the 'Smriti Patal'. It cannot be said that the name of the petitioner on the Smriti Patal was inscribed later on or was not initially inscribed when the petitioner remained in jail.

11. Annexure-7 is a Identity Card issued by Swatantrata Sangram Senani Kalyan Parishad, U. P., Lucknow. It bears serial No. 8667 and was issued by the Director/Secretary on 19-1 -76. Thishas been issued ill-view of the letter No. 1407 7 Z/ 6-76-43 G/76 sent by Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of U. P. to all the District Magistrates and Head of the Departments on 10th of March, 1976. This is a short letter of three parats and it says that Identity Cards be issued by the said Kalyan Parishad to all the freedom fighters who are entitled to get pension under the rules and the purpose for which this identity card is to be utilized has also been dealt with in this letter. It further mentions that this identity card will serve as a proof of freedom fighter and no other evidence may be required by any authority of the State Govt. This identity card bears the seal of the State Govt. U has also been verified by the Treasury Officer, Faizabad. This is a conclusive proof that the petitioner is a freedom fighter and has been detained in jail and is entitled to pension in accordance with the rules framed by the State Govt. in the year 1975.

12. Learned Standing counsel has placed reliance on letters, copies of which are Annexures 9 and 10 in order to show that the records relating to the petitioner are not available in the District Jail and as such the facts could not be verified. In these letters it is merely mentioned that there is no details of the prison suffered by the petitioner. In Annexure-13, which is also a letter by the Dy. Secretary dated 1-12-74, it has come for the first time that details could not be verified for want of availability of the records and the application of the petitioner has been rejected on that basis, No reliance can be placed on these letters and pension cannot be denied to the petitioner on the basis of these letters because the other documents available on the record, which have been mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, are sufficient to prove that the petitioner is a freedom fighter and is entitled to the pension as such.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, reported in 1995 (13) Lucknow Civil Decisions 820. In that case a plea was raised by the Government that the application was moved by the petitioner after the prescribed date. Dealing with his matter the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:--

'As regards the contention that the petitioners had filed their applications after the date prescribed in that behalf, we are afraid that the Government stand is not justifiable. It is common knowledge that those who participated in thefreedom struggle either at the national level or in the erstwhile Nizam State, are scattered all over the country and most of them may even be inhabiting the remotest parts of the rural areas. What is more, almost all of them must have now grown pretty old, if they are alive. Where the freedom fighters are not alive and their widow and the unmarried daughters have to prefer claims, the position may still be worse with regard to their knowledge of the prescribed date. What is more, if the Scheme has been introduced with the genuine desire to assist and honour those who had given the best part of their life for the country, it ill behaves the Government to raise pleas of limitation against such claims. In fact, the Government, if it is possible for them to do so, should find out the freedom fighters or their dependents and approach them with pension instead of requiring them to make applications for the same. That would be the true spirit of working out such Schemes. The Scheme has rightly been renamed in 1985 as the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme in accordance with its object. We, therefore, cannot countenance the plea of the Government that the claimants would only be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme if they made applications before a particular date notwithstanding that in fact they had suffered the imprisonment and made the sacrifices and were thus otherwise qualified to receive the benefit. We are, therefore, of the view that whatever the date on which the claimants make the applications, the benefit should be made available to them. The date prescribed in any past or future notice inviting the claims, should be regarded more as a matter of administrative convenience than as a rigid lime-limit.'

14. In view of that has been stated above, it is proved from the record that the petitioner is a freedom fighter and is entitled to the pension. According to the petitioner he had moved application for grant of pension in the year 1973 while according to the learned Standing counsel it was moved sometimes in 1980. The fact that the application was moved in the year 1973 is also proved from the top line of Annexure-9, which is a letter issued by the Dy. Secretary to the Govt. of U. P. addressed to the District Magistrate, Faizabad. The top line gives number as 4863 Z/6-b-89-246/73. This figure clearly indicates that the file of the petitioner was opened in the year 1973. On the basis of this entry the Court can safelyconclude that the application was moved by the petitioner in the year 1973. The Rules which have been framed by the State Govt. were framed in the year 1976 and were enforced from 6th August, 1975. Therefore, the petitioner shall be entitled to get freedom fighters' pension from 6th August, 1975.

15. So far as the quantum of pension is concerned, it is for the State Govt. to fix the quantum of pension to be paid to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner monthly pension was granted to some of the freedom fighters @ Rs. 60 and to others @ 100/-. The Court is not in a position to fix the quantum of pension. Therefore, it would be better if this exercise is done by the Slale Govt. When the pension is fixed by the Stale Govt., then the petitioner shall get interest on the amount of pension also. The pension fixed by the State Government w.e.f. 6th August 1975 will be subject to all benefits which have been granted from time to time by the State Govt. to other freedom fighters.

16. Now considering the fact that the Slate Govt. has not granted any pension to the petitioner since 1975 and has dragged him to the Court. The petitioner being on old man of 83 years has been deprived of the pension for no fault of his, though he had submitted application and a number of reminders to the State Govt. but even then the State Govt. has not granted pension to the petitioner, which shows callousness with which the petitioner has been treated by the State Govt. In order to compensate the petitioner, the Court fixes an amount of Rs. 5000/- as special costs.

17. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 20-12-94 contained in Annexure-13 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to freedom fighters' pension to be fixed by the State Govt. in accordance with the provisions of the Rules w.e.f. 6th August, 1975. The quantum of pension shall be fixed within a period of two months from today. The petitioner shall be paid interest at the rate of 7 1/2% from 6-8-1975 to 31-12-80, at the rale of 10% from, 1 -1 -1981 to 31st December, 1989 and at the rate of 12% from 1-1-1990 till the arrears of pension are paid. The amount of pension and arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within the next two months. Pension in future shall be paidby the State and when it falls due. A sum of Rs. 5000/- is awarded special costs which shall be deposited in Court by the State within two months from today and the petitioner will be entitled to withdraw that amount as special costs.

18. Petition allowed.