AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ appeal by a person who was a freedom fighter and has been receiving freedom fighter pension by the State Government, whose efforts for securing pension under Central Government Scheme to recognize such freedom fighters has come to halt in view of the communication dated September 21st, 2010 [copy produced as Annexure-L to the writ petition] declining the request on the premise that the material placed by the very petitioner indicates that the petitioner had not undergone six months imprisonment for the cause of liberation of erstwhile State of Hyderabad from the rule of Nizam, as the certificate issued by the Jail Authorities showed that the imprisonment was on and after the date subsequent to the liberation of erstwhile State of Hyderabad namely on and after 17.8.1949; to be precise the date indicated in the certificate issued by the prison authorities dated 14.12.1357 (Fasli). Writ petition is for quashing of the communication at Annexure-L and consequential directions to the Central Government, but came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge by this Court as per the order dated 10.02.2011 and as against this order the present writ appeal.
We have heard Sri. Ustad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, Assistant Solicitor of General appearing for respondent No. 1-Central Government and Sri. Manavendra Reddy, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 2-State Government.
Submission of Sri. Ustad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that when it is the fact that the appellant has been receiving pension from the State Government as a person who has participated in the freedom struggle; recognized as freedom fighter and he being given pension of freedom fighter by the State Government, the decision of the Government of India in declining pension under its scheme on some technical ground is not in consonance or with the spirit and object of Central Swatantra Sainika Samman Pension; that while it is the fact that the appellant had underwent imprisonment and was in the central prison at Gulbarga for 10 to 11 months before the liberation; that the prison authorities had mistaken the entry regarding dates and have given the date of his incarceration to be 14.12.1357(fasli), corresponding to 20th September, 1948 that they should have been mentioned in the earlier period etc.
It is for this reason the learned counsel for the appellant seeks for allowing of the writ appeal, to set aside the order of the learned single Judge, to quash the endorsement issued by the Central Government and to issue consequential directions etc.
Appearing on behalf of the first respondent submission of Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, learned Assistant Solicitor General is that the scheme for grant of freedom fighter pension formulated by the State Government is not on par with the Central Swatantra Sainika Samman Pension scheme; that the scheme formulated by the Central Government envisages that a freedom fighter should have undergone minimum period of imprisonment for six months in connection with the freedom movement; that in the case of the appellant, as per the material placed by the very appellant, the very imprisonment is after the liberation of the erstwhile Hyderabad State and therefore there is no way of conferring pension on the appellant.
It is also submitted with reference to the calendar prepared by the Statistics Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh, the corresponding date of 14.12.1357 (falsi) is only 20.09.1948 and therefore there was no occasion for the Central Government acceding to the request of the appellant.
It is further contended that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that some dates are incorrectly mentioned by the prison authorities cannot be accepted and also that the State Government having not confirmed a minimum imprisonment of six months suffered by the appellant which at least could have enabled the claimant to come up before the Central Government and that also not forthcoming and the appellant-petitioner having not placed such material it was inevitable to reject the request of the appellant.
In this connection, the directions and observations contained in the judgment of Supreme Court case of MUKUNDAL BHANDARI AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 1993 SPP 3 SCC 2 as contained at paragraphs 4 to 8 throws sufficient light on this aspect.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 75 of 1991, Sarja V. Union of India was filed by some of the participants in the Arya Samaj Movement in the late 1930s in the erstwhile Nizam Sate of Hyderabad. The participants in question were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment exceeding six months. The Union of India filed a counter-affidavit and pointed out that the earlier petition induli Chand case was decided ex parte and by accepting all the allegations made by the petitioners therein. The Court, therefore, felt that it would not be appropriate to dispose of the petition by adopting the order made by its in the earlier petition. One of the questions which fell for consideration was whether the petitioners had suffered the minimum sentence of six months'' imprisonment on account of their participation in the said Movement which was the qualifying period of imprisonment under Scheme. It was found from the material produced by most of the petitioners that they were sentenced to imprisonment sentences, a general amnesty was declared by the then Nizam on his birthday, and without their asking for the same, their sentences were reduced and they were set free. In view of the fact that the petitioners'' sentences were reduced without their praying for the same, it was held that the petitioners had satisfied the condition under the Scheme, viz, that qualifying condition of six months. While interpreting the qualifying condition of six months imprisonment, it was in terms held that if the prisoner was sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more his claiming any remission, he should be deemed to have fulfilled the qualifying period of imprisonment for six months. In the circumstances, the claim of the petitioners was accepted and they were directed to be paid pension with effect from August 1, 1980. Here again, it may be pointed out it was not contended on behalf of the Union of India that the pension should not be made payable with retrospective effect and hence there was no occasion to consider whether notwithstanding the delay in making the application and whatever the date on which the applicant made the claim, he should be entitled to the same with effect from the retrospective date as if he had made his application in time, viz., before the date prescribed for making such application.
Coming now to the present petition, the petitioners/the late freedom fighters are persons who had participated in the Arya Samaj Movement in the late 1930 in the erstwhile Nizam State of Hyderabad. In view of the amendment made to the Scheme by the Government circular/letter dated September 30, 1985. the petitioners would undisputedly be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme provided, of course, they produced the relevant material in support of their claim. This is not dispute on behalf of the Union of India. However, three contentions have been raised. Firstly, the petitioners have not produced the required proof in support of their claim that they had in fact participated in the movement and were sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more. Secondly, they had filed their applications before the Government after the date prescribed for filing the application. And thirdly, in any case, if it is held that they satisfied the qualifying conditions under the Scheme, they would be entitled to the pension only from the date they produced the required documentary proof in support of their claim and not from any earlier date.
As regards the sufficiency of the proof the Scheme itself mentions the documents which are required to be produced before the Government It is not possible for this Court to scrutinize the documents which according to the petitioners, they had produced in support of their claim and pronounce upon their genuineness. It is the function of the Government to do so, we would, therefore, direct accordingly.
As regard the contention that the petitioners had filed their applications after the dale of prescribed in that behalf, we are afraid that the Government stand is not justifiable. It is common knowledge that those who participated in the freedom 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 widows and the unmarried daughters have to prefer claims, the position may still be worse with regard to their knowledge of the prescribed dale. What is more, if the Scheme has been introduced with the genuine desire to assist the honour those who had given the best part of their life for the country, it ill behoves 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 dependants and approach them with the 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 to accord 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 applicants, 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 time limit
Coming now to the last contention advanced on behalf of the Government viz., that the benefit of the Scheme should be extended only from the date the claimant produces the required proof of his eligibility to the pension, we are of the view that this contention can be accepted only partially. There have been cases, as in the present case, where some of the claimants had made their applications but either without the necessary documentary proof or with insufficient proof. It is unreasonable to expect that the freedom fighters and their dependents, would be readily in possession of the required documents. In the very nature of things, such documents have to be secured either from the jail records or from the persons who have been named in the Scheme to certify the eligibility. Thus the claimants have to rely upon third parties. The records are also quite old. They are bound to take their own time to be available. It us, therefore, unrealistic to expect that the claimants would be in a position to produce documents within a fixed time-limit. What is necessary in matters of such claims is to ascertain the factum of the eligibility. The point of time when it is ascertained, is unimportant. The prescription of a rigid time-limit for the proof of the entitlement in the very nature of things is demeaning to the object of the scheme. We are, therefore, of the view that neither the date of the application nor the date on which the required proof is furnished should make any difference to the entitlement of the benefit under the Scheme. Hence, once the application is made, even if it is unaccompanied by the requisite eligibility data, the date on which it is made should be accepted as the date of the preferment of the claim whatever the date on which proof of eligibility is furnished.
Sri. Manavendra Reddy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State Government - respondent No. 2 submits that as per the very date as indicated by the prison authorities, the appellant cannot claim pension under the Central Scheme etc., but the occasion never arose for the State Government to examine as to whether the person had actually underwent imprisonment for a minimum period of six months in connection with the freedom struggle whether in terms of the certificate issued by the prison authorities or otherwise also.
While on the face of it, it appears that the appellant has in fact not placed clinching material before the Central Government to convince the Central Government that he had undergone imprisonment for a minimum period of six months for having participated in the freedom struggle/liberation of the erstwhile Hyderabad State, the material placed by the appellant before the Central Government being in the form of a certificate issued in favour of the person who had undergone imprisonment not in connection with any crime committed by him but as a political prisoner, it does indicate that the appellant has suffered some imprisonment in connection with the liberation movement and was not in the prison as a person involved in other type of the movement.
When prima-facie the certificate issued by the appellant before the Central Government did indicate that he was a person involved in the freedom struggle or liberation movement, the attitude of the Central Government that the appellant-petitioner had not produced the recommendation of the State Government to grant him central pension on the premise that he had underwent six months imprisonment etc., in connection with the freedom struggle is not a stand which we can appreciate and it is definitely not in consonance with the spirit and object of pension scheme formulated by the Central Government, nor on the guidelines as had been issued by the Supreme Court in the case Mukundal Bhandari and others Vs. Union of India and others quoted earlier in this order.
If the central Government is keen on conferring samman pension on a person as a freedom fighter, it should not in reality turn out to be a case of either harassment or humiliation. It is most undesirable and in fact we are quite constrained to observe that the manner in which the Central Government insists on any person to produce material to substantiate his claim and at any rate looking for a recommendation by the State Government to enable the person to receive samman pension, is nothing short of an evasive and insensitive approach to the issue by the Central Government.
If the Central Government is really interested on conferring pension, it is for the Central Government to make efforts to elicit the views of the State Government, by itself as to whether the applicant fulfils the criteria under the scheme formulated by the Central Government and for such purposes as to whether the person had undergone imprisonment for six months or more in connection with the freedom struggle or the liberation of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad etc. Instead of making efforts in this direction, making applicant to run from pillar to post is definitely not a proper manner of functioning by the Central Government which we cannot approve or appreciate.
While it is for the Central Government to be satisfied about a person''s eligibility for grant of pension under the scheme formulated by the Central Government and if the Central Government is really keen on conferring the same, it should make efforts and not to treat such freedom fighters like an applicant who is in the queue seeking for some favour, an attitude of this nature is nothing short of disrespecting the freedom fighter and even insulting. We strongly depreciate the manner in which the Central Government is implementing this scheme.
If the submission of Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, learned Additional Solicitor General is to be accepted as a fact that the number of persons who had received the benefits under the scheme, exclusively in connection with the liberation of Hyderabad State has exceeded the figure of two lakhs, whereas the facts and figures available with the Home Ministry was to the effect that about 20-30 thousands of persons had participated in this movement etc, it is again reflective of the abusive tendency on the part of our fellow citizens to take undue advantage of a laudable scheme formulated by the government and the manner in which the benefits of a good and appreciable scheme is misused or hijacked by undesirable persons. If there is a frequent misuse of such a scheme, it is for the Central Government to have a rethink regarding continuation of such schemes. More so, when even most of the genuine freedom fighters and people who might have participated in the liberation movement are no more or only a few of them might be surviving but granting such benefits to undesirable and fraudulent persons is only frustrating such schemes and wasting of public funds.
While it is for the Central Government to have a rethink with regard to the continuation or otherwise of the scheme having regard to the long lapse of time and the fact that time takes care of everyone including freedom fighters and no one is permanent on this earth!
In so far as the present case is concerned, the endorsement at Annexure-L dated 21.09.2010 is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari with the direction to the Central Government to make efforts to ascertain from the State Government as to whether the appellant had in fact undergone imprisonment for the requisite period in connection with the liberation movement of the former Hyderabad State and to act according to the recommendation of the State Government.
Such effort should be made by the first respondent/Central Government itself and not to ask the petitioner/appellant to produce proof or material.
With such observation and direction, this appeal is allowed, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the Central Government is directed to act as above. Rule issued and made absolute.