Ram Pratap Jaiswal S/O R B Jaiswal vs Union Of India Ministry Of State ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 6578 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW
 
							            A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 27
 

 
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 4696 of 2010
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Pratap Jaiswal S/O R B Jaiswal
 
Respondent :- Union Of India Ministry Of State Home Affairs Freedom
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Onkar Nath Tiwari
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C,A S G
 

 
Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.

Hon'ble S.C. Chaurasia,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Sri K.K. Srivastava, holding brief of Sri I.H. Farooqui, Assistant Solicitor General of India for Union of India and perused the record.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to decide the writ petition finally at admission stage.

2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17.12.2009, passed by the opposite party No.3- Deputy Secretary, Home, Anubhag II, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, by which the petitioner's application for grant of pension under 'Swatantrata Sangram Senanio Aur Unke Pariwaro Ko Diye Jane Wala Anudan Tatha Pensiono Ko Viniyamit Karne Ke Samband Main Niyamawali' (in short Rules), has been rejected.

3. The State of U.P. and Government of India have framed separate schemes to acknowledge the services rendered by the citizens during struggle for independence of country and one another scheme has been framed to compassionate such persons who have sacrificed their lives for the sake of country. The petitioner, who is aged about 84 years, claims to be one of them. He has moved an application for grant of pension under the aforesaid rules and the same has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that he does not fulfil necessary conditions provided under the rules.

4. While assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted by Sri Onkar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed on unfounded grounds, that too without application of mind. The material evidence on record has not been considered by the State Government while rejecting the petitioner's claim by the impugned order. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order suffers from vice of arbitrariness and hence, hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5. Attention has been invited to the report dated 5.12.2008, sent by District Magistrate, Faizabad, based on the report of Senior Superintendent of Police, Faizabad dated 14.11.2008 preceded by the report sent by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Faizabad dated 19.10.2008. A perusal of the report dated 14.11.2008 submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faizabad to the District Magistrate, Faizabad, prepared by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Faizabad reveals that the petitioner had participated in the Quit India Movement in the year 1942. He was actively involved in the freedom struggle and on account of participation in the Quit India Movement, the petitioner's mother late. Dhanraji Devi and the petitioner were arrested and brought to the local police station. At the residence of the petitioner, there was a branch of Gandhi Ashram Meerut, which was managed and operated by the petitioner and his mother late. Dhanraji Devi. The branch of Gandhi Ashram and other property were confiscated and seized and in consequence thereof, the petitioner and his family lost their livelihood. Their act was also declared to be unlawful. The petitioner's father, late. Ram Bharosey Jaiswal was an employee in the railway, working on the post of bricks man and his services were terminated by the Britrishers. In the year 1942, during Quit India Movement, the petitioner and his colleagues, namely, Jagmohan Yadav, resident of Bhadarsa Nimoli, Police Station Purakalandar, Faizabad and Sukhdev Lal, resident of Nariyawan, Police Station Purakalandar, Faizabad were actively involved along with others. Jagmohan Yadav is alive and Sukhdev Lal is no more alive. Jagmohan Yadav has been given honorarium under the aforesaid scheme.

6. It appears that the entire report dated 19.10. 2008, prepared by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Faizabad, forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faizabad has been communicated to the State Government by the District Magistrate, Faizabad, which is reproduced as under:-

^^xksiuh;

 
la0&,y vkbZ ;[email protected],l Vh&[email protected]	dk;kZy;iqfyl mik/kh{kd ¼vfHk0½
 
							QStkckn
 
lsok esa]						fnukad& vDVwcj 19] 2008
 
	ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd]
 
	QStkcknA	
 

d`i;k vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼izkHkk0½] QStkckn ds i= la[;k [email protected]@tkap&lsuk0 isa'[email protected] fnukad 24-09-2008 ¼layXu½ dk lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa tks Jh jke izrki tk;loky iq= Lo0 jke Hkjksls tk;loky dks jkT; LorU=rk laxzke lsukuh isa'ku fns;s tkus dk laca/k esa tkap dj vk[;k miyC/k djk;s tkus fo"k;d gSA

mijksDr lanHkZ esa voxr djkuk gS fd Jh jke izrki tk;loky ¼mDr½ xzke bNkSjh iks0 [kijSyk cktkj Fkkuk rk:u] QStkckn ds ewy fuoklh gSaA budh vk;q bl le; yxHkx 82 o"kZ gSA buds laca/k esa dkQh Nkuchu dh x;h rks Kkr gqvk fd lu 1942 esa dzkafrdkjh vkUnksyu vaxzstksa Hkkjr NksM+ks vkUnksyu ds nkSjku lfdz; Hkwfedk fuHkkbZA budh eka Lo0 /kujkth nsoh o bUgs ¼jke izrki tk;loky½ dks LFkkuh; iqfyl }kjk idM+dj Fkkuk yk;k x;k Fkk rFkk buds ?kj ij xka/kh vkJe esjB dh 'kk[kk Hknjlk Fkkuk iwjkdyUnj dh mi'kkpkk bNksjh ftldh lapkyd budh ekrk o vki Lo;a Fks] dks Hkh lkeku xka/kh vkJe 'kk[kk dk Fkk] budh fxj¶rkjh ds ckn tCr dj fy;k x;k Fkk vkSj xka/kh vkJe mi'kk[kk esa rkyk yxkdj lhy dj fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj buds dk;Z dks fof/k fo:) ?kksf"kr dj fn;k x;k FkkA KkrC; gks fd vkosnd jkeizrki tk;loky ds firk Lo0 jke Hkjksls tk;loky tks rRdkyhu le; esa jsyos oekZ esa fczDl eSu ds in ij rSukr Fks dks ;g dg djds fczfV'k gqdwer }kjk ukSdjh ls fudky fn;k x;k Fkk fd vkids x`g tuin ds vkoklh; ifjlj esa xka/kh vkJe dh 'kk[kk pykbZ tk jgh gSA

lu 1942 ds vkUnksyu esa buds lkFkh Jh txeksgu ;kno fu0 Hknjlk fueksyh Fkkuk iwjkdyUnj] QStkckn o lq[knso yky fu0 ufj;kaok Fkkuk iwjk dyUnj] QStkckn Fks ftudh e`R;q gks pqdh gS vkSj tks Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh dk leLr ykHk ljdkj }kjk ik jgs Fks] ds }kjk e`R;q ds iwoZ fy[kh x;h rgjhj fd jke izrki tk;loky Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh vkUnksyu essa esjs lkFk jgdj Hkwfexr gksdj [kcj igqapkus] i= igqapkus vkfn dk dk;Z djrs gSa ¼izfrfyfi layXu½ Lora=rk laxzke vkUnksyu ds nkSjku vdlj buds ?kj ij iqfyl }kjk nfc'k nh tkrh jgh gS ftlls ;g Hkwfexr jgdj dk;Z fd;k djrs Fks] blds fy, bUgs tsy tkuk iM+k Fkk] ijUrq tsy tkus] iqfyl }kjk idM+s tkus dk dksbZ vfHkys[k ekStwn ugh gSA Jh jke izrki dh vkfFkZd fLFkfr detksj ik;h x;hA

vkosnd Jh jke izrki tk;loky Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh lEeku isa'ku ds gdnkj gS rFkk bNkSjh xzke esa midsUnz tks budk x`g&Hkou gS] esa xka/kh vkJe dk midsUnz [kqyk Fkk vkSj Hkkjr NksM+ks vkUnksyu esa c<+&p<+ dj fgLlk fy;s Fks] ds lEcU/k esa Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh ifj"kn ds funs'kd Jh /keZjkt flag }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k i= Hkh layXu gSA

LFkkuh; tkap ls buds }kjk Hkwfexr jgdj Lora=rk laxzke vkUnksyu esa Hkkx ysus o dk;Z djus dh iqf"V gksrh gSA

layXud&;FkksifjA

¼ladBk flag½

iqfyl mik/kh{kd ¼vfHk0½

QSTkkcknA

7. On perusal of the aforesaid report, it is evident that from the investigation at local level, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Faizabad found that the petitioner had actively participated in the Quit India Movement and fought for independence of the country. The aforesaid report was forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faizabad and later on, the same was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Faizabad. The District Magistrate, Faizabad, vide latter dated 5.12.2008 had then forwarded it to the State Government. The entire letter dated 5.12.2008 of District Magistrate, Faizabad is reproduced as under:-

izs"kd]

ftykf/kdkjh]

QSTkkcknA

lsok esa]

mi lfpo]

m0iz0 'kklu

x`g ¼lkekU;½ vuq0 2

y[kuÅA

i=kad&[email protected]@lsukuh&isa'[email protected] fnukad 5 fnlEcj 2008

fo"k;& Jh jke izrki tk;loky iq= Jh jke Hkjksls tk;loky] fuoklh xzke bNkSjh] Mkd?kj [kijSyk] cktkj] rglhy chdkiqj] QStkkckn dks jkT; Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh isa'ku fn;s tkus ds laca/k esasA

egksn;]

mi;qZDRk fo"k;d] d`i;k 'kklukns'k la[;k&442 tsM ¼2½ @6&08&[email protected] fnukad 09-06-2008 dk lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsaA bl laca/k esa ;g Hkh voxr djkuk gS fd Jh jke izrki tk;loky mijksDr ds laca/k esa 'kklukns'k i= la[;k&453 [email protected]&7&3&04&4 [email protected] fnukad 3-7-2004 }kjk tkap gsrq bl dk;kZy; esa izkIr gqvk FkkA rRdze esa bl dk;kZy; ds i= la[;k&2092 fnukad 9-12-2004 }kjk vk[;;k izsf"kr dh x;h FkhA iwoZ izsf"kr vk[;kvksa dh Nk;kizfr;ka voyksdukFkZ layXu dh tk jgh gSA ;gka ;g Hkh mYYksy[kuh; gS fd 'kklu us vius vkns'k la[;k&359 [email protected]&lk&3&07&[email protected] 2007 fnukad 25-4-2007 }kjk Jh jke izrki iq= Jh jke Hkjksls] fuoklh mijksDr dk izkFkZuk i= vLohd`r dj fn;k x;k Fkk ¼Nk;kizfr layXu½A

mDr izdj.k ds laca/k esa Jh jke izrki tk;loky iq= Jh jke Hkjksls tk;loky] fuoklh xzke bNkSjh] Mkd?kj [kijSyk] cktkj] rglhy chdkiqj] QStkckn dh iqu% tkap ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd] QStkckn o miftykf/kdkjh] chdkiqj] QStkckn ls }kjk djk;h x;hA miftykf/kdkjh] chdkiqj] QStkckn us viuh vk[;k fnukad 28-8-2008 ¼Nk;kizfr layXu½}kjk voxr djk;k gS fd Jh jke izrki tk;loky iq= Jh jke Hkjksls fuoklh mijksDr ds edku esa vaxzsth gqdwer esa xka/kh vkJe dh 'kk[kk py jgh Fkh] ftlls vktknh dh yM+kbZ es vaxzsth gqdwer }kjk lhy dj fn;k x;kA blh 'kk[kk esa Jh tk;loky ds dk;ZdrkZ gksus dh iqf"V gksrh gSA edku lhy gksus ds ckn og Hkwfexr jgsA ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd us viuh vk[;k fnukad 14-11-2008 ¼Nk;kizfr layXu½ }kjk voxr djk;k fd Jh jke izrki tk;loky fuoklh mijksDr lu 1942 ds vkUnksyu esa buds lkFkh Jh txeksgu ;kno] fuoklh Hknjlk fueksyh] Fkkuk iwjkdyUnj] QSTkkckn o lq[knso yky] fuoklh ufj;koka] Fkkuk iwjkdyUnj] QSTkkckn Fks] ftudh e`R;q gks pqdh gS vkSj tks Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh dk leLr ykHk ljdkj }kjk ik jgs Fks] ds }kjk e`R;q ds iwoZ fy[kh x;h rgjhj fd jke izrki tk;loky Lora=rk laxzke vkUnksyu esa esjs lkFk jgdj Hkwfexr gksdj [kcj igqapkus i= igqapkus vkfn dk dk;Z djrs gS] izfrfyfi layXuA Lora=rk laxzke vkUnksyu ds nkSjku vdlj buds ?kj ij iqfyl nfc'k nh tkrh jgh gS] ftlls ;g Hkwfexr jgdj dk;Z fd;k djrs FksA blds fy, bUgs tsy tkuk iM+k] ijUrq tsy tkus] iqfyl }kjk idM+us dk dksbZ vfHkys[k ekStwn ugh gSA vk[;k vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq lknj izsf"krA

layXud&;Fkksifj Hkonh;

vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼iz'kklu½@

d`rs ftykf/kdkjh]

QStkcknA

8. It appears that during pendency of the proceedings before the State Government, an information was sought from the District Magistrate and in response thereof, District Magistrate, Faizabad had communicated again to the State Government, vide letter dated 5.11.2009, informing the State Government that the petitioner had actively involved in the Quit India Movement and fought for the country. However, District Magistrate as well as Senior Superintendent of Police could not collect any information to establish that the petitioner was in jail. The letter dated 5.11.2009 sent by District Magistrate to the State Government is on record, which is reproduced as under:-

izs"kd]

ftykf/kdkjh]

QStkcknA

lsok esa]

lfpo]

m0iz0 'kklu

x`g ¼lkekU;½ vuqHkkx&2] fnukad 5 uoEcj] 2009

i=kad& [email protected]@tkap&lsukuh isa'[email protected]

fo"k;&Jh jke izrki tk;loky iq= Jh jke Hkjksls] fuoklh xzke bNkSjh] ijxuk if'pe jkB] rglhy chdkiqj] QStkckn ds lsukuh isa'ku dh tkap ds laca/k esaA

egksn;]

mi;qZDr fo"k;d d`i;k 'kklu ds [email protected] la[;k&940 tsM¼2½@6&2000& [email protected] 2007 fnukad 29-10-2009 dk lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa] ftlesa mDr izdj.k ds laca/k esa mRrj izns'k Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh fu;ekoyh&1975 ds fu;e&6 rFkk 11 dks laKkku esa ysrs gq, okafNr vk[;k miyC/k djk;s tkus dk funsZ'k izkIr gqvk gSA

bl laca/k esa voxr djkuk gS fd mDr izdj.k dh tkap miftykf/kdkjh] chdkiqj }kjk djk;h x;h] mUgksus viuh fcUnqokj vk[;k fnukad 3-11-2009 }kjk izsf"kr dh gS] tks fuEuor gS%

1- izkFkhZ dk dFku lR; gSA miftykf/kdkjh dh vk[;kuqlkj iawN&rkaN ls irk pyk gS fd izkFkhZ dh vk;q lu 1942 esa yxHkx 17 o"kZ FkhA ml le; vaxzstkas dh gqdwer FkhA vaxzst yksx tks pkgrs Fks] lks djrs FksA izkFkhZ ds ?kj xka/kh vkJe [kqyk gqvk FkkA layXu c;ku ds vuqlkj xka/kh vkJe] esjB dh leLr 'kk[kkvksa dks tCr djus dk vkns'k gqvk Fkk] ftldh Nk;kizfr layXu gS] ftlls iqf"V gksrh gS fd izkFkhZ ds ?kj [kqyk gqvk xka/kh vkJe Hkh tCr djds vaxsztksa }kjk lhy fd;k x;k gksxk rFkk izkFkhZ o mudh eka dks ;kruk nh x;h gksxhA xka/kh vkJe [kqyus dk c;ku Jh f'kodqekj flag] Jh 'kEHkwnRr ik.Ms;] Jh f=os.kh ;kno] Jh jktkjke oekZ] layxu gS rFkk cSyxkM+h ls leku ykus okys jkevo/k o jke[ksykou dk c;ku Hkh layXu gSA

2- izkFkhZ dk dFku lR; gSA izek.k Lo:i Jh txeksgu ;kno dk c;ku rFkk Jh lq[knso yky dh fu;qfDr dh Nk;kizfr layXu gSA Jh /keZjkt] Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh dY;k.k ifj"kn ds funs'kd dh vk[;k layXu gSA

3- izkFkhZ dk dFku lR; gSA izkFkhZ ds ?kj xka/kh vkJe pyk;s tkus dk lk{; ekStwn gS] tSlk fd fcUnq&1 esa of.kZr gS vkSj fczfV'k gqdwer }kjk nfc'k fn;s tkus ds dh iqf"V gksrh gSA izkFkhZ ds eqag ds vUnj ns[kus ij izkFkZuk i= esa n'kkZ;h x;h chekjh dh izFke n`"V;k iqf"V gksrh gSA

4- izkFkhZ dk dFku lR; gSA izkFkhZ ds firk oekZ jsyos esa fczDleSu ds in ij dk;Zjr Fks] ftUgs ukSdjh ls i`Fkd dj fn;k x;k Fkk rFkk 1946 o 1947 esa iqu% cqykok i= Hkstdj ukSdjh ds fy, cqyk;k x;kA

5- izkFkhZ dk dFku lR; gS] tSlk fd fcUnq 4 esa of.kZr fd;k x;k gSA

6- izkFkhZ ds bl dFku dh iqf"V gsrq izkFkhZ }kjk dksbZ lk{; ugh izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA

bl laca/k esa Lora=rk laxzke lsukfu;ksa vkSj muds ifjokjksa dks fn;s tkus okys vuqnku rFkk isa'kuksa dks fofu;fer djus ds laca/k esa fu;ekokyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ }kjk dksbZ vfHkys[kh; lk{; izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k] ftlls buds lsukuh gksus dh iqf"V gksA

vr% vk[;k egksn; dh lsok es vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq iszsf"kr gSA

layXud&;FkkifjA Hkonh;

¼,e0ih0 vxzoky½

ftykf/kdkjh]

QSTkkcknA

9. The payment of pension/honorarium to the freedom fighter is governed by aforesaid rules (supra). Rule 2 contains the ground on which a person, who fought for the country, may be paid pension under the scheme. For convenience, Rule 2 is reproduced as under:-

2- bu fu;eksa es tc rd fd izlax }kjk vU;Fkk visf{kr u gksa]

d& ^^Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh** dk rkRi;Z mRrj izns'k ds ,sls vf/k'kklh O;fDr ls gS ftlus Hkkjrh; Lora=rk laxzke esa Hkkx fy;k gks vkSj ftlds }kjk bu dk;Zdykiksa esa Hkkx ysus ds QyLo:i de ls de nks ekl dh vof/k ds fy, dkjkokl dk naM Hkksxk x;k gks] ;k ftls utjcanh ;k vUMj Vªk;y dSnh ds :i esa tsy es de ls de rhu ekl dh vof/k ds fy, j[kk x;k gks] ;k ftlus de ls de 10 csrksa dh ltk ik;h gks ;k tks Qjkj ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gks] ;k mDr Lora=rk laxzke es xksyh ls ?kk;y gqvk gksa] ;k ftlus ohjxfr izkIr dh gksA

fVIi.kh&**¼1½ fuEufyf[kr Js.kh esa vkus okys O;fDr Lora=rk laxzke lsukuh dh mDr ifjHkk"kk esa lfEefyr ekus tk;saxs%&

¼d½ ,sls O;fDr tks is'kkoj dkaM esa jgs gks]

¼[k½ ,sls O;fDr tks HkwriwoZ vktkn fgUn QkSt ds izekf.kr lSfud vFkok HkwriwoZ bafM;k bfUMisUMsUl yhx ds izekf.kr lnL; jgs gksa]

¼x½ mRrj izns'k dh ,slh efgyk;sa] tks fookg vFkok vU; dkj.kksa ls mRrj izns'k ds ckgj jg jgh gSa] ij ftUgksus mDr ifjHkk"kk essa nh gqbZ fdlh ;kruk dks Hkksxk gks]

¼?k½ ,sls O;fDr] ftUgs xka/kh bjfou iSDV 1931] vFkok Lora=rk laxzke ds laca/k esa pyk;s x;s fdlh vkUnksyuksa esa dsUnzh; vFkok izns'kh; ljdkj ds lkekU; vFkok fof'k"B fjgkbZ ds vkns'kksa ds QyLo:i] ltk iw.kZ gksus ls iwoZ gh NksM+ fn;k x;k gks] c'krsZ mudh naMkns'k dh vof/k nks ekg ls de u jgh gks]

¼M½ ,sls O;fDr] ftUgs Lora=rk laxzke esa Hkkx ysus ds QyLo:i viuh lSfud] vlSfud vFkok iqfyl dh ukSdjh ls gVk fn;k x;k gks]

¼p½ ,sls O;fDr] tks 1914 ds dkekxkVk ek: ds ekeys ls lacaf/kr jgs gksa]

¼N½ ,sls O;fDr] tks 1912 dh xnj ikVhZ ls lacaf/kr jgs gksa]

¼t½ ,sls O;fDr] ftudh py vFkok vpy lEifRr Lora=rk laxzke es Hkkx ysus ds QyLo:i dsUnzh; vFkok izns'kh; ljdkj }kjk tCr dj yh x;h gks vFkok dqdZ gksus ds ckn okil u dh x;h gks]

¼>½ ,sls O;fDr] ftUgksus Hkkjr dh rRdkyhu ns'kh; fj;klrksa esa fczfV'k 'kklu dky ds nkSjku ;k 15 vxLr] 1947 ds i'pkr muds Hkkjrh; la?k esa foy; gksus rd] mDr ns'kh fj;klrksa ds iz'kklfud lq/kkj ;k ukxfjd Lora=rk ds fy;s ;k 15 vxLr] 1947 ds i'pkr muds Hkkjrh; la?k esa foy;u ds fy, vkUnksyuksa ess Hkkx fy;k gks] c'krsZa mUgksus bl laca/k esa mDr ifjHkk"kk esa nh x;h ;krukvksa es ls dksbZ Hkh ,d ;kruk Hkksxh gks]

¼¥½ ,sls O;fDr] ftUgksus Hkkjr esa gksus okys QzkUlhlh vFkok iqrZxkyh mifuns'kksa ds Lora=rk] laxzke esa ml vof/k ds nkSjku Hkkx fy;k gks tc rd fd mudk Hkkjrh; la?k esa foy;u u gks x;k gks]

10. From perusal of the aforesaid Rule 2 (supra), it is evident that a person shall be deemed to be a freedom fighter, who has been removed from service, which includes Civil Service. It further provides that all those persons shall also be entitled for pension, whose properties were confiscated or seized on account of participation in the struggle for the independence of the country. Obviously, the petitioner's father was removed from service and his shop was confiscated. They were apprehended and lost their source of livelihood on account of involvement in the freedom struggle.

11. Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the identical provisions of the Central Scheme, in the case, reported in 1989 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 581, R. Narayanan Versus Union of India and another, has interpreted the rule and held that scheme should be interpreted, keeping in view its background that there may not be direct evidence for those, who fought for the country.

12. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner's colleague Jammohan Yadav had filed affidavit to establish that the petitioner had participated in the Quit India Movement and the branch of Gandhi Ashram opened in his house was sealed and confiscated. Sri Manoj Mehrotra, one another Freedom Fighter, Kalyan Parishad, Faizabad and Dharmraj Singh, Director, Freedom Fighter, Kalyan Parishad, U.P., Lucknow have also filed their affidavit to establish that the petitioner had participated in the Quit India Movement.

In the case of R. Narayanan (supra), their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para-9 as under:-

"9. The interpretation given by the respondents to clause 3(e) of para 4 cannot be sustained because the words used in the clause are 'permanently incapacitated' and not 'permanently totally incapacitated'. If the stand of the respondents is to be accepted, it would be opposed to the plain meaning of the words and result in addition of more conditions to the clause what the framers of the Scheme have laid down. It cannot be disputed, in view of the certificates issued to him by the government doctors that the appellant has suffered permanent incapacitation of his left eye due to lathi blows received by him during the freedom struggle. The question would then be whether that incapacity would satisfy the requirement of clause (e) or not. As already stated, clause (e) refers only to permanent incapacitation and not total incapacitation of a permanent nature. It therefore follows that the measure of test laid down by the clause is the permanent nature of the incapacitation and not the total nature of the incapacitation. If clause (e) is to be interpreted in the manner set out in the counter affidavit, it would follow that a freedom fighter who has lost a leg or an arm cannot claim payment of pension on the basis of permanent incapacitation inasmuch as the incapacitation suffered by him is not of both the legs or both the arms. It would be the height of injustice to freedom fighters, who are a diminishing lot, to construe clause (e) in the said manner. Highly inequitable therefore it would be for the appellant to be denied pension under the Scheme because he has suffered loss of vision only in one eye and not in both the eyes. The respondents have failed to see that under the Scheme if a freedom fighter had undergone imprisonment or had been underground for a minimum period of six months he can be granted pension. In such circumstances can it be contended that a person who has permanently lost his powers of vision in one eye due to firing or lathi charge cannot be granted pension unlike a person who has been in prison for six months or had remained underground for six months in order to evade arrest."

13. In view of above, there appears to be ample evidence on record to establish that the petitioner was involved in the Quit India Movement and scarified not only his life but other members of his family including mother and father while fighting for independence of India. At the face of record, the impugned order reveals that the aforesaid facts and circumstances, which are showing the petitioner's involvement in the Quit India Movement, has not been considered by the State Government. The Deputy Secretary, who has issued impugned order, had adjudicated the controversy mechanically. The order is cryptic and unreasoned. It was incumbent upon the State Government to consider the aforesaid facts and circumstances and material on record duly forwarded by the District Magistrate, Faizabad on the basis of report sent by Senior Superintendent of Police, Faizabad. Non-considering the entire material on record makes the order bad in law.

14. Now, it is well settled proposition of law that even on administrative side, the decision of the Government must be speaking and reasoned. In a case reported in JT 2010 (9) SC 590; M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd & another Versus Sh. Masood Ahmad Khan & others, their Lordship of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the administrative authorities while taking decision in the matter have to pass speaking and reasoned order. Unreasoned order shall be violative of principle of natural justice and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

15. Unfortunate, the part of the present case is that the petitioner, who is aged about 84 years, is running from pillar to post for just cause. The District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police repeatedly state that the petitioner was involved in the Quit India Movement and one of his colleague Jagmohan Yadav has already been given pension under the aforesaid Scheme. Why the petitioner is being deprived of his pension. There appears to be highly arbitrary exercise of powers by the State Government and its authorities while adjudicating the present controversy. The government should have allowed the petitioner's application and pension must have been granted to him in accordance with rules, instead of delaying the matter or rejecting the same on unfounded ground. It is a fit case, where the exemplary costs should be imposed and the pension should be ordered to be paid to the petitioner who suffered for no fault on his part. The person who fought for the independence of country, must be recognized by the State Government and its authorities. The Government should have sympathetically considered the petitioner's application. It is not the question of only monetary gain but also the question of recognition of the services rendered by the person who fought for the independence of the country.

16. In view of above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued, quashing the impugned order dated 17.12.2009, contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition with consequential benefits along with costs, which is quantified to Rs. 50,000/-(fifty thousand). The costs shall be deposited by the State Government within a period of one month and the petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw the same. A writ in the nature of mandamus is also issued, directing the State Government to adjudicate the controversy afresh with regard to the payment of pension and other benefits to the petitioner under the Scheme keeping in view the observation made in the body of present judgment expeditiously, say, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of present judgment. It shall be open to the State Government to recover the costs from the person or authority concerned, who had rejected the petitioner's application in such a careless manner on unfounded grounds.

Order Date :- 19.12.2011

Sanjay