Tulsi Ram vs Union of India and Another

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Petitioner, claiming himself to be the freedom fighter for participating in Praja Mandal Movement, submitted an application for the grant of freedom fighter pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 on 22.1.1982. According to him, he was externed by the Ex-Ruler of Bilaspur District with effect from 1946 to 12.10.1948. In support of his application, he filed certificates issued by Sh. Kartar Singh, Ex. Dy. S.P. Annexure P-3 and Annexures P-4 and P-5 issued by Sh. Munshi Ram Narotam Dutt Shastri, respectively. S/Sh. Munshi Ram and Narotam Dutt Shastri are getting pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. Sh. Kartar Singh was working as Dy. S.P. Bilaspur State. The case of the petitioner was rejected on 25.7.1996. He approached this Court by way of CWP No. 573 of 1992. It was decided on 30.12.1994. The operative portion of the judgment dated 30.12.1994 reads as under:

Under the circumstances, we would direct the respondent-Union of India to reconsider the case of the petitioner, based on the certificate stated to be issued by Sh. Kartar Singh, Ex.-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur State and in case their opinion be that this certificate is genuine, consider grant of pension to the petitioner from the date he has become eligible to the said pension under the scheme, as amended from time to time. We would, however, expect the respondent-Union of India to decide the matter, as aforesaid, as early as possible but preferably within a period of four months from today.

However, the fact of the matter is that case of the petitioner was rejected on 25.7.1996. This letter is placed on record by respondent No. 1. According to the contents of Annexure R-1 dated 25.7.1996, the certificate of Sh. Kartar Singh, Ex-Dy. S.P. Bilaspur submitted by the petitioner was sent to the Laboratory for verification. The Laboratory has reported that the document has been signed by the person other than Sh. Kartar Singh. In view of this, the case of the petitioner for pension was rejected. A case was registered against the petitioner and Narotam Dutt Shastri bearing case No. 5/2 of 1999 for offences punishable under sections 468, 420 and 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The gist of the charges levelled against the petitioner was that he alongwith Narotam Dutt Shastri forged the signatures of Ex-Dy. S.P. Bilaspur Sh. Kartar Singh. The petitioner and Narotam Dutt Shastri were acquitted on 29.4.2009. The learned trial court has categorically held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused have forged the signatures of Ex. Dy. S.P. on the certificates, thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused. The case of the petitioner was directed to be considered by this Court in CWP No. 573 of 1992 after verifying the authenticity of the certificate issued by Sh. Kartar Singh. The certificate issued by Sh. Kartar Singh, Ex-Dy. S.P. has not been found forged by the trial court in case No. 5/2 of 1999. This Court, as noticed above, had specifically directed the Union of India that in case the certificate issued by Sh. Kartar Singh, Ex-Dy. S.P. Bilaspur was found genuine, to consider the grant of pension to the petitioner from the date he became eligible under the scheme amended from time to time. The only reason assigned while rejecting the case of the petitioner vide Annexure R-1 dated 25.7.1996 is that the certificate issued by Sh. Kartar Singh was not found genuine. The reply in the present case was filed by the Union of India. The judgment rendered by the trial court could not be over looked by respondent No. 1 while filing the reply. Since the petitioner was externed on the oral order of the Ex-Ruler of Bilaspur, he has led secondary evidence in the shape of Annexures P-3 to P-5. The Union of India has diluted the rigours of the scheme and has permitted the certificates to be verified by the police personnel of the erstwhile police and also by the local M.L.A.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on the basis of certificate issued vide Annexures P-3, P-4 and P-5 and in view of acquittal order passed by the trial court in case No. 5/2 of 1999 on 29.4.2009, within a period of eight weeks from today. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.