Dismissed

Piara Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Feb 2014CWP/10513/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by an elderly man seeking a freedom fighter pension. The Court upheld the Central Government's rejection of the claim due to lack of sufficient documentary evidence proving imprisonment, citing precedent that such verification is the executive's function.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; claim for pension denied.

Piara Singh Vs Union of India and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No. 10513 of 2011 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No. 10513 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.03.2014

Piara Singh

.. .. Petitioner

versus

Union of India and others ..Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶9

Present: Mr. B.S. Baath, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Anjali Kukkar, Advocate for respondent No. 1-U.O.I

¶11

Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab

¶12

********

¶13

RITU BAHRI , J.

¶14

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant

¶15

writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for issuance of direction to the respondents to provide Sawatantra Sainik Samman Pension to the petitioner along with arrears from back date and consequential benefits to the petitioner.

¶16

Earlier, the petitioner had filed CWP No. 16616 of 2010,

¶17

with the same prayer, as is sought in the present petition and it was

¶18

disposed of by this Court on 16.09.2010 (P-1) directing the PunjabArora Gaurav 2014.04.07 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP No. 10513 of 2011 (O&M) -2-

¶20

authorities to verify the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension and thereafter, if the claim is found to be true and genuine, recommend his

¶21

case for the grant of pension, within a period of four months. Thereafter, the Punjab Government wrote a letter to the petitioner dated 03.01.2011 in which Deputy Commissioner, Barnala has already sent the case of the petitioner for further action (P-2). The Deputy Commissioner, Barnala sent a letter dated 12.01.2011 to the concerned department of Punjab State recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of pension etc to the petitioner (P-3). The date of birth of the petitioner is 20...1920 and he is about 91 years old. The petitioner became prisoner of the Japanese in the year 1942 during the World War 2^nd involved in Indian National Army which was tried by the British Military Court at Singapore in which the sentence awarded to the petitioner was 09 months in the year, 1945 to April 1946 and the petitioner suffered actual imprisonment from August, 1945 to April 1946 and lodged in Vidhya Dhari detention Camp Singapore during the above said period and at that time one co-prisoner was Bachan Singh who was also remained there, issued certificate in this regard to the petitioner, which was sent to the respondents and when Indian became independent 14/15^th August, 1947, the petitioner never took any benefits/employment from the Government of the respondent. The

¶22

Arora Gaurav 2014.04.07 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CWP No. 10513 of 2011 (O&M) -3-

¶24

petitioner has the document showing him as Ex Military A No. 42782 Gunner of Artillery Regiment. Despite the recommendation made by the State of Punjab (P-3), no benefit has been extended to the petitioner till date.

¶25

On notice, a reply has been filed by respondent No. 2 to the effect that the Central Swantantarata Sainik Saman Pension sanction authority is Government of India in the Department of Home Affairs and Justice, New Delhi. After receiving a letter dated 26.05.2011 from Deputy Commissioner, Barnala, Government of India vide letter dated 24.06.2011 directed the department to send a translated copy of reverification report received from Deputy Commissioner, Barnala. It was further requested to sent the application and documents of the petitioner in the prescribed format along with the specific recommendations of the State Government. Respondent No. 2 has forwarded the application in the prescribed format along with the recommendations and re-verification report of the D.C. Barnala to the Government of India vide office letter dated 08.08.2011.

¶26

Reply by way of affidavit of Deputy Commissioner, Barnala.respondent No. 3 has also been filed to the effect that the case of the petitioner has been recommended vide letter dated 12.01.2011 (Annexure R-1/T) after doing the necessary verifications.

¶27

Arora Gaurav 2014.04.07 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CWP No. 10513 of 2011 (O&M) -4-

¶29

Reply by way of affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1 has been filed wherein in paragraph No. 2 of the reply, the provisions of

¶30

Swatantarata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 has been mentioned, which reads as under

¶31

(i) Imprisonment suffering:A person who had suffered minimum imprisonment of 6 months (3 months in case of women and SC/CT freedom fighters) on account of participation in freedom struggle subject to furnishing of the following evidences

¶32

(a) Primary evidence:- Imprisonment/detention certificate from the concerned jail authority/District Magistrate/State Government indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release, facts of the case and reasons for release.

¶33

(b) Secondary evidence:- In case the official records of the relevant period were not available then secondary evidence in form of two co-prisoner certificates (CPC) from central freedom fighter pensioners who have proven jail suffering of minimum one year and who were with the applicant in the same jail, could also be considered provided that the State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned, after due verification of the claim and its genuineness, certifies that documentary evidence from the official records in support of the claimed sufferings were not available. In case the certifier happens to be a sitting on Ex-MP/MLA, only one certificate in place of the two is required. In the case of persons belonging to INA category, only one CPC is required.

¶34

As per the above said provision, the petitioner was found to be

¶35

Arora Gaurav 2014.04.07 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

CWP No. 10513 of 2011 (O&M) -5-

¶37

not eligible for the grant of pension, due to following shortcomings:-

¶38

“(ii) The Dy commissioner Barnala in his report has stated that Tehsildar, Tapa has verified Shri Piara Singh (petitioner) as freedom fighter. One Shri Bachan Singh s/o Shri Lal Singh, freedom figher of the same village has verified that Shri Piara Singh (petitioner) was actually serving in Indian National Army (INA) as Gunner of Artillery Regiment. Shri Piara Singh (petitioner) has also got recorded his statement and shown Tamra Patra given to him. In view of this, the DC Barnala has forwarded his pension case for consideration as per Rules; the report, however, does not indicate that he had suffered imprisonment for minimum six months due to his claimed participation in the INA movement. Photocopy of the same is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1. Further grant of Tamra Patra does not mean that he had undergone the prescribed suffering.

¶39

(iii) The Discharge Certificate i.e an official document issued by Indian Army Authorities, shows that he was enrolled in Indian Army (Artillery Regiment) on 20.8.1937 and discharged on 20.8.1946. It does not give any indication that he had joined INA and was discharged from Indian Army for his claimed participation in INA. Instead, it shows “released on reduction of forces.” from para 12 of his application, it is abundantly clear that he was neither classified BLACK OR GREY nor his pay and allowances were forfeited under British Rule. These facts only suggest that he was not associated with the INA.”

¶40

Arora Gaurav 2014.04.07 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

CWP No. 10513 of 2011 (O&M) -6-

¶42

As per the detailed reasons given above, the case of the petitioner has been rightly rejected.

¶43

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Union of India vs.

¶44

Mohan Singh and others, 1996 (10) SCC 351, in para 4 has observed as under:-

¶45

“4. This court in Mukund Lal Bhandari & Ors. Vs. Union

¶46

of India & Ors. [(1993) Supp. 3 SCC 2 (para 6)] had held, as regards the sufficiency of the proof, that 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.”

¶47

The scope of interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is very limited as held in the case of State of Maharashtra and

¶48

others vs. Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar, 2004(6) SCC 584,

¶49

wherein in para 6, it has been observed as under:-

¶50

It is true that in Gurdial Singh's case (supra) this Court has emphasized the need for dealing with the claim of freedom fighters with sympathy dispensing with the need for standard of

¶51

Arora Gaurav 2014.04.07 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

CWP No. 10513 of 2011 (O&M) -7-

¶53

proof based on the test of "beyond reasonable doubt" and the approach should be to uphold the entitlement by applying the principle of probability so as to honour, and to mitigate the sufferings of the freedom fighters. However, the observa-tions of this Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari 's case (supra) cannot be lost sight of and give a complete go by wherein this Court has very clearly directed that:

¶54

"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."

¶55

The High Court exercising writ jurisdiction does not sit in judgment over the decision of the State Government like an appellate authority. Ordinarily, the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot enter into re-appreciation of evidence and reverse the findings arrived at by the State Government unless they be perverse or be such as no reasonable man acting reasonably could have arrived at. If the High Court found that the

¶56

Arora Gaurav 2014.04.07 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶57

CWP No. 10513 of 2011 (O&M) -8-

¶58

decision arrived at by the State Government was flawed in any way then the High Court should have, after laying down the necessary principles or guidelines or issuing directions, directed the State Government to reconsider the case of the respondent In no case, the High Court could have in exercise of its writ jurisdiction relaxed the need for full satisfaction of the necessary requirements on the fulfillment of which alone the respondent's entitlement to the release of freedom fighter's pension depended.”

¶59

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Mahender Singh vs. Union of India , 2010(12) SCC 675 had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner for ground of compensation, on the ground that the if there was no documentary evidence to prove that he had undergone more than 04 year in jail coupled with the fact that certificate of coprisoner submitted by him was found not to be sufficient, recommendations of State Government are not binding on the Central Government. In paragraph 8 and 9, it has been observed as under:-

¶60

“8) Insofar as the Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) of Shri Jagdish Singh, it is the stand of the Government of India that the same is not acceptable as the certifier was in jail for most of the period of the claimed suffering of the appellant. In view of the same, it could not be possible for the certifier to verify Arora Gaurav 2014.04.07 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶61

CWP No. 10513 of 2011 (O&M) -9-

¶62

the period as well as the reasons of the claimed suffering of the appellant based on his (Jagdish Singh) personal knowledge.

¶63

9) Though the State Advisory Committee and the Government of Bihar recommended the case of the appellant for Central Scheme, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that the same is not binding on the Central Government in the absence of required proof for the same. In other words, the recommendation of the State Government is not final or conclusive and it is for the authority of the Central Government granting such pension to make further inquiry in the matter in terms of various conditions prescribed in the Scheme and to take a final decision.”

¶64

In the present case, the Central Government examined the

¶65

case of the petitioner in detail and he was not found eligible for

¶66

Sawatantra Sainik Samman Pension.

¶67

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶68

( RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶69

19.03.2014