Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagwan Das Verma vs Union Of India & Anr on 18 March, 2010
W.P.No. 2429 / 2001 18-03-2010 Shri R.S.Khare, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vikram Singh, counsel for the respondent No.1/Union of India.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, counsel for the respondent No.2/State.
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the denial of freedom fighters pension under the scheme framed by the Central Government in the year 1972 and 1980.
The case of the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner was appointed and was working in the erstwhile Custom & Excise Department but was removed from service on account of his activities which were found to be anti Government in that particular point of time. The petitioner submits that he has filed certificates of the then Commissioner, Custom & Excise, dated 11-10-1972 and 14-10-1976 to that effect as well as a certificate of the Collector, Tikamgarh dated 23-12-1963 to the effect that the petitioner was and is a political sufferer. It is further stated that he had also produced certificates of the Freedom Fighter Association, Tikamgarh dated 1-5-1985 in support of his claim for freedom fighters pension under the scheme as well as certificate of prominent freedom fighters and members of the Parliament. It is stated that in spite of the aforesaid as the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P.No. 4360/1995 and was disposed of by order dated 6-5-1998 by issuing the following directions :-
"3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the answering respondent disputing the contentions raised in the petition. Mr. Gohil, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent, Union of India, suggested that if the petitioner makes a representation to the competent authority of the Central Government along with documents the same shall be considered after getting an inquiry conducted by the agency of the State Government with regard to the genuineness of the documents. Mr. Gohil assures that the representation of the petitioner shall be disposed of within six months from the date of receipt of representation.
4. Recording such assurance the petition stands disposed of."
It is stated that subsequent to the disposal of his petition the petitioner filed a fresh representation claiming freedom fighters pension on 25-9-1998 which has again been rejected by the respondent-Union of India by the impugned order dated 4-11-1999 without calling for or awaiting the report of the State Government. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent-authorities dated 4-11-1999 apparently discloses non-application of mind by the authorities as well as non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No. 4360/1995 dated 6-5-1998 and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
The learned counsel for the Union of India submits that the petitioner's claim was initially rejected in the year 1973 on account of the fact that his assertions regarding freedom fighting activities and remaining underground were found to be unsubstantiated as the period of petitioner's remaining underground was less than six months which is a pre-requisite under the scheme. It is further stated that the respondent-authorities after scrutinizing the petitioner's case have rejected his claim for grant of freedom fighters pension and in such circumstances no interference is called for in the impugned order.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
From a perusal of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition and the impugned order passed by the respondent- authorities it is apparent that the authorities have not complied with the directions issued by this Court inasmuch as they have not waited for the enquiry report in respect of the authenticity of the claim of the petitioner from the State Government as is evident from a perusal of paragraph 1 of the impugned order and have again reiterated the same facts stating that his claim has already been rejected previously. It is also clear that the respondent-authorities have not applied their mind to the claim of the petitioner based on his removal from service as a consequence of which he was deprived of his livelihood on account of his involvement in freedom fighters the activities which is another ground on which the petitioner has claimed freedom fighters pension.
In view of the aforesaid the impugned order dated 4-11-1999 passed by the respondent-Union of India is set aside and the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with direction to the respondent- State to submit its report/recommendation on the application filed by the petitioner after conducting an enquiry into the documents and assertions made by the petitioner including his claim regarding removal of service. Looking to the age of the petitioner which is now 91 years the said exercise should be completed by the authorities of the State within six weeks from the date of the supplying of the copy of the order passed today. The authorities of the Union of India on the basis of the recommendations and enquiry report submitted by the State shall take a fresh decision on the application of the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter.
With the aforesaid directions the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(R.S.Jha) W.P.No. 2429 / 2001 18-03-2010 Shri R.S.Khare, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vikram Singh, counsel for the respondent No.1/Union of India.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, counsel for the respondent No.2/State.
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the denial of freedom fighters pension under the scheme framed by the Central Government in the year 1972 and 1980.
The case of the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner was appointed and was working in the erstwhile Custom & Excise Department but was removed from service on account of his activities which were found to be anti Government in that particular point of time. The petitioner submits that he has filed certificates of the then Commissioner, Custom & Excise, dated 11-10-1972 and 14-10-1976 to that effect as well as a certificate of the Collector, Tikamgarh dated 23-12-1963 to the effect that the petitioner was and is a political sufferer. It is further stated that he had also produced certificates of the Freedom Fighter Association, Tikamgarh dated 1-5-1985 in support of his claim for freedom fighters pension under the scheme as well as certificate of prominent freedom fighters and members of the Parliament. It is stated that in spite of the aforesaid as the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P.No. 4360/1995 and was disposed of by order dated 6-5-1998 by issuing the following directions :-
"3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the answering respondent disputing the contentions raised in the petition. Mr. Gohil, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent, Union of India, suggested that if the petitioner makes a representation to the competent authority of the Central Government along with documents the same shall be considered after getting an inquiry conducted by the agency of the State Government with regard to the genuineness of the documents. Mr. Gohil assures that the representation of the petitioner shall be disposed of within six months from the date of receipt of representation.
4. Recording such assurance the petition stands disposed of."
It is stated that subsequent to the disposal of his petition the petitioner filed a fresh representation claiming freedom fighters pension on 25-9-1998 which has again been rejected by the respondent-Union of India by the impugned order dated 4-11-1999 without calling for or awaiting the report of the State Government. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent-authorities dated 4-11-1999 apparently discloses non-application of mind by the authorities as well as non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No. 4360/1995 dated 6-5-1998 and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
The learned counsel for the Union of India submits that the petitioner's claim was initially rejected in the year 1973 on account of the fact that his assertions regarding freedom fighting activities and remaining underground were found to be unsubstantiated as the period of petitioner's remaining underground was less than six months which is a pre-requisite under the scheme. It is further stated that the respondent-authorities after scrutinizing the petitioner's case have rejected his claim for grant of freedom fighters pension and in such circumstances no interference is called for in the impugned order.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
From a perusal of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition and the impugned order passed by the respondent-
authorities it is apparent that the authorities have not complied with the directions issued by this Court inasmuch as they have not waited for the enquiry report in respect of the authenticity of the claim of the petitioner from the State Government as is evident from a perusal of paragraph 1 of the impugned order and have again reiterated the same facts stating that his claim has already been rejected previously. It is also clear that the respondent-authorities have not applied their mind to the claim of the petitioner based on his removal from service as a consequence of which he was deprived of his livelihood on account of his involvement in freedom fighters the activities which is another ground on which the petitioner has claimed freedom fighters pension.
In view of the aforesaid the impugned order dated 4-11-1999 passed by the respondent-Union of India is set aside and the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with direction to the respondent- State to submit its report/recommendation on the application filed by the petitioner after conducting an enquiry into the documents and assertions made by the petitioner including his claim regarding removal of service. Looking to the age of the petitioner which is now 91 years the said exercise should be completed by the authorities of the State within six weeks from the date of the supplying of the copy of the order passed today. The authorities of the Union of India on the basis of the recommendations and enquiry report submitted by the State shall take a fresh decision on the application of the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter.
With the aforesaid directions the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(R.S.Jha)
mct Judge