Hira Lal Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr.
2003 Latest Caselaw 554 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. This petition has been filed, inter-alia, seeking a direction for the grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension to the petitioner under the Central Scheme from 23.09.1994, which is the alleged date of application.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner was denied Freedom Fighters' Pension by the State of Uttar Pradesh on the ground that his applications were contradictory. The contradiction was that at one point of time, the petitioner claimed the pension on the ground of being involved in the 'Freedom Struggle' without going to jail and at a later point of time, the petitioner submitted that he had, in fact, been imprisoned also. Apparently, on the basis of this contradiction, the State of Uttar Pradesh did not grant the petitioner the Freedom Fighters' Pension.

3. However, the petitioner's application before the Union Territory of Delhi for the grant of UTFF Pension was considered and allowed. This is recorded in the 'Minutes of the Meeting of Freedom Fighters Relief Committee' held on 12.01.1996 in the Old Secretariat, Delhi. In the Minutes, it is recorded that the petitioner's claims had been scrutinised by the Committee and that on the basis of a Certificate issued by one Sh. Banarasi Das, Ex-Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh / Member (Rajya Sabha), in which it was stated that the petitioner (Sh. Hira Lal Sharma) was a co-prisoner with him during 1941 for more than 6 months, the Committee recommended the name of the petitioner for grant of 'Delhi UTFF Pension' @ Rs. 500/- per month w.e.f. 27.09.1995. This figure of Rs. 500/- has subsequently been raised to Rs. 1,000/- per month. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has been recognised as a 'Freedom Fighter' by the Union Territory of Delhi in view of the Certificate mentioned above.

4. The present writ petition pertains to the grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension by the Central Government. The Central Government had not granted the Pension on the ground that the petitioner being a person hailing from District Bulandshahr (U.P.), the State of Uttar Pradesh would be the appropriate authority for certifying as to whether the petitioner was, in fact, a Freedom Fighter or not. It was the Central Government's contention that as the State of Uttar Pradesh itself had not granted the Pension to the petitioner, it would be difficult for the Central Government to do so. The reason why the State Government rejected the Pension was the contradictory stand taken by the petitioner. Be that as it may, the question that has to be examined is whether the petitioner, in fact, was a Freedom Fighter entitled to the Pension or not? This aspect has been considered by the Delhi Government and he has been accorded recognition as a Freedom Fighter. Furthermore, there is the question of as to whether the petitioner was at all in prison and whether this imprisonment was in connection with the Freedom Struggle. From the record that has been produced by the learned counsel for the respondent, it appears that on 09.04.1941, the petitioner was, in fact, in prison u/s 38(5) read with Section 121 of the defense of India Act. In fact, the petitioner was in prison in connection with Case No. 91 registered at Police Station, Aurangabad, District Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh. Although the initial term of imprisonment is recorded as two years, it is, however, unclear as to whether the petitioner served the entire two years or was released earlier. In any event, this much is clear that the petitioner was in prison and his imprisonment was in connection with the Freedom Struggle. In this eventuality, there appears to be no impediment in the grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension by the Central Government.

5. However, learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the applications of the petitioner himself were contradictory, the Central Government cannot be faulted in this respect and, accordingly, the petition itself be treated as the proper application and if this Court is inclined to grant relief to the petitioner, the same be granted from the date of the writ petition. I am inclined to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent and I accordingly direct that the petitioner be granted Freedom Fighters' Pension by the Central Government w.e.f. 17.10.2001, which is the date of filing of the present writ petition.

6. To this extent, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no orders as to cost.

Writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.