Shri Rai Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
civil - pension - petitioner participated in freedom movement - application for pension - requisite information furnished - government rejected pension claim - writ petition filed - petitioner has given many years of his life for the sake of country - no need to linger the case for such a long period. - - when the petitioner did not get any response from the respondent authorities, he kept reminding them and knocked the doors of various officials for necessary action but failed to get any response. 3 had, after due verification, found the case of the petitioner to be genuine and had also recommended his case. ballia, recommended to the state government for grant of freedom fighters pension to the petitioner, copy of which has been filed as annexure-3 to the counter-affidavit. it has also to be kept in mind that the claimants of the scheme are supposed to be such persons who had given the best part of their life for the country. 7. on the facts of the case, we are satisfied that this writ petition deserves to be partly allowed and we direct the respondent no.vineet saran, j. 1. by means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to grant him the pension of freedom fighter since 6th august, 1975, under the provisions of 'swatantrata sangram senaniyon aur unke parivaron ko diya jane wala anudan tatha swatantrata sangram pension sambandhi niyamawali, 1975' (hereinafter referred as rules of 1975). it is alleged that the petitioner is about 86 years of age and had participated in the freedom movement of the country along with pt. jawahar lal nehru and mahatma gandhi and also took part in the 'quit india movement'. it is alleged that the petitioner was declared 'farar' but was not actually arrested. further, he alleges that in 1989, he was given a 'samman patra' the district freedom fighters organization, ballia. annexure-3 to the writ petition. 2. the petitioner states that on 3.3.1993, he applied to the slate government for sanction of pension as a freedom fighter under the rules of 1975. in this application (which has been filed as annexure-4 to the writ petition), he had furnished all the requisite information in support of his claim. when the petitioner did not get any response from the respondent authorities, he kept reminding them and knocked the doors of various officials for necessary action but failed to get any response. it is alleged that the district magistrate, ballia respondent no. 3 had, after due verification, found the case of the petitioner to be genuine and had also recommended his case. the petitioner also states that other freedom fighters similarly situated as the petitioner have been granted freedom fighters pension under the same rules. 3. counter-affidavit has been filed by the learned standing counsel in which the facts stated in the writ petition have not been controverted. it is admitted in the counter-affidavil that after obtaining the necessary report from the subordinate officials. on 2.5.2001, the district magistrate. ballia, recommended to the state government for grant of freedom fighters pension to the petitioner, copy of which has been filed as annexure-3 to the counter-affidavit. 4. in support of his case, the petitioner has relied on the principles laid down by the supreme court in the case of gurdial singh v. union of india and ors. jt 2001 (8) sc 165. in appeal before the supreme court, the appellant had claimed to be a freedom fighter and had applied for the pension in 1973 and despite furnishing requisite information/ documents, the government rejected his claim. on writ petition filed by him, the punjab and haryana high court directed the respondents in that case to re-decide his case. the concerned authorities thereafter accorded provisional pension to the appellant w.e.f. 25.4.1998 only. being dissatisfied with the grant of pension w.e.f. 1998, the appellant filed another writ petition claiming that he may be granted the pension from the date of application, i.e., 12.3.1973, on which the high court directed the respondents to decide his claim within two months. surprisingly, after the decision of the high court, the respondents cancelled its earlier order of grant of pension also, against which another writ petition was filed which was dismissed and hence the appeal before the supreme court. 5. while allowing the appeal in that case, the supreme court had observed as follows : 'the scheme was introduced with the object of providing grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families and to the families of martyrs. it has to be kept in mind that millions of masses of this country had participated in the freedom struggle without any expectation of grant of any scheme at the relevant time. ................ keeping in mind the object of the scheme, the concerned authorities are required that in appreciating the scheme for the benefit of freedom fighters a rationale and not a technical approach is required to be adopted. it has also to be kept in mind that the claimants of the scheme are supposed to be such persons who had given the best part of their life for the country.......... the standard of proof required in such cases is not such standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case ad-judicated upon rival contentions of evidence of the parties. as the object of the scheme is to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country, a liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking pension under the scheme. it should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by scheme have suffered for the country about half a century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them. once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the scheme. the case of the claimants under this scheme is required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touchstone of the test of beyond reasonable doubt.' 6. in the present case, the petitioner applied to the state government in 1993, nearly nine years back and it is reprehensible on the part of the state government that they have kept the application of the petitioner pending for so long. 7. on the facts of the case, we are satisfied that this writ petition deserves to be partly allowed and we direct the respondent no. 1 to decide the claim of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above by a speaking order within a period of two months.