Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 22 March, 2014
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
Archana arora
CM No. 3580-CWP of 2014 in 1 2014.03.25 16:32
I am the author of this
CM No. 659 of 2014 in document
CWP No. 18124 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CM No. 3580-CWP of 2014 in
CM No. 659 of 2014 in
CWP No. 18124 of 2011
Date of decision March 22, 2014
Joginder Singh
....... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate
for the applicant-respondents in
CM No. 3580 of 2014 and
for non-applicant in CM No. 659 of 2014.
Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate
for the non-applicant-petitioner in
CM No. 3580 of 2014 and
for applicant in CM No. 659 of 2014.
****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
K. Kannan, J (oral).
CM No. 3580 of 2014
C.M.is allowed.
Counter affidavit taken on record.
CM No. 659 of 2014
1. In the order passed allowing the writ petition directing pension to be paid under the Swatanter Sainik Scheme I had upheld the claim of the petitioner that he had been imprisoned CM No. 3580-CWP of 2014 in 2 CM No. 659 of 2014 in CWP No. 18124 of 2011 during freedom struggle and the certificate issued by the Jail Authorities are a vindication of the claim. On such a plea, the Union however raised a doubt that the age proof was not available had rejected the claim on the basis of age as entered in the voter's list. The writ petition was allowed holding that when there was a jail certificate that showed the petitioner's imprisonment, there was no reasonable ground to doubt the same and reject the application by making reliance on the age as entered in the electoral roll.
2. The grievance of the applicant that finds expression through application for clarification is that the order does not make reference about the commencement of the date when the computation was to made. The Union would join issue on the plea by contending that the order passed by this Court was confirmed by the Division Bench as well as by the Supreme Court and the Union has complied by giving effect to the order from the date when this Court has passed the order.
3. Both sides rely on the same authorities holding on the issue of commencement of period from which the calculation ought to be made. They lay down that if the High Court passes the order specifying a particular date from when it should commence that itself will govern the issue. In other cases it should be understood where there existed a doubt regarding the pensioner's entitlement and the benefit of doubt is given to the status of the person as a freedom fighter then it should be only from the date of the order of the High Court. Three decisions have been cited by the CM No. 3580-CWP of 2014 in 3 CM No. 659 of 2014 in CWP No. 18124 of 2011 counsel for the Union namely Union of India and another Vs. Kaushalaya Devi (2007) 9 SCC 525, Union of India and others Vs. Kashiswar Jana (2008) 11 SCC 309 and Government of India Vs. K. V. Swaminathan (1997) 10 SCC 190 that bring out this aspect of how when there exists a doubt regarding the status of a person as a freedom fighter and the Court makes an adjudication uphold the status and consequently the entitlement, it shall be only from the date of the order of the High Court. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner points out to me the judgment in Kaushalaya Devi's case (supra) makes a distinction between a situation where the claim was not granted on the basis that the jail certificate but on the oral statement of some other detenue then it should be taken as a circumstance indicating a benefit of doubt in which case, the pension would be granted from the date of the order. In this case, the benefit of doubt was not on the issue of imprisonment at all. The doubt which the Union had raised was with reference to the age which had been observed in the order of this Court as a false bogey for a rejection of the claim. The reasoning adopted in the order passed by this Court would reveal that there was no doubt regarding his status as a freedom fighter which was borne out clearly through the jail record that gave the details of imprisonment, the name of the person and the identity of the person with reference to father's name as well. The Union was taking up a contention that age certificate was not there and therefore the identity was not clearly established. This cannot be taken to be really a benefit of doubt which was to be CM No. 3580-CWP of 2014 in 4 CM No. 659 of 2014 in CWP No. 18124 of 2011 apprised requiring the forensic skills of Court's endeavour. It was simply a case of the Union's show of apathy which this Court has found fault with and has allowed the petition. I will see the circumstance emanating in this case ought not to be taken as a claim which was allowed by the Court on the basis of giving a benefit of doubt. On the other hand, I have held in the order that there existed no doubt at all and the Union's stand was not correct. I therefore hold that the order which did not spell out clearly from which date the pension must be reckoned requires to be clarified and I do so here through this order directing that the reckoning shall be done from the date of the applicant providing proof of imprisonment through the Jail certificate. The date of receipt of the Jail certificate in the office of the Union shall therefore be the date from when the reckoning must be done.
4. The application is disposed of. The order is clarified as above.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 22, 2014 archana