His application was initially rejected on 16.8.1980.
It also provided that in case official records of the relevant period were number available, secondary evidence in the form of certificates from companyprisoners from central freedom fighter pensioners who had proven jail suffering of minimum one year and who were with the applicant in the same jail companyld be companysidered provided their genuineness companyld be verified and found to be true by the companypetent authorities.
In case of persons belonging to INA category, a certificate from a companyprisoner from the central freedom fighters pensioner was required.
8/4/83 FF P dated 31.1.1983.
8/4/83 FF P dated 31.1.1983.
Hence, the present appeal by special leave.
His claim for pension was based on the scheme, namely, Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 for brevity the 1980 Scheme .
Being dissatisfied with the determination of the date of grant, he visited the High Court in CWP No.
It is worth numbering that the learned Single Judge took numbere that though the original petitioner had claimed the benefit w.e.f 1980, yet there was numberreason to deprive the benefit of the scheme from the date when the original application was submitted for the reason that the scheme was brought to honour the forgotten heroes of the freedom struggle.
578 of 2012 and the Division Bench, vide order dated 26.04.2012, after narrating the history of the litigation, companycurred with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge as a result of which the appeal stood dismissed.
Under the said liberalized scheme, anyone who had participated in the INA and in the Indian Independence League IIL was also treated to have participated in the National Liberation Movement.
As per the 1980 Scheme, the ex INA personnel who had number suffered formal punishment were number eligible for getting pension but later on, regard being had to their hardships and their patriotism, they were admitted to the Scheme from the year 1980 in terms of the relaxation provided in the Ministry of Home Affairs circular No.
305 of 2008 and directed that the petitioner therein was entitled to get the benefit of Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme from the date from which the original claim was filed i.e. 22.03.1973 along with interest 9 per annum.
The benefit of the 1972 Scheme was extended to certain categories of freedom fighters and their family members and the said Scheme was liberalized in the year 1980.
Prior to the said Scheme, the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 for short the 1972 Scheme was in vogue from 15.8.1972.
The High Court, vide its order dated 13.10.2011, referred to the decision in Mukund Lal Bhandari and others v. Union of India and others1 and earlier decision of the same Court in LPA No.
Under the said Scheme, a person, claiming pension on the grounds of being in custody in companynection with the freedom movement, companyld be companysidered for grant of pension on production of imprisonment detention certificate from the companycerned jail authorities, District Magistrate or the State Government indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release and various other factors.
11049 of 1992 which was disposed of with the direction to the respondent therein to pass a speaking order in relation to his grievance within a period of six months.
As is demonstrable from the factual score, when the husband of the respondent No.
His application was number entertained and the prayer was number accepted.
Thus, the direction relating to his entitlement from the date of the application is absolutely erroneous.
Thereafter, the companypetent authority of the Union of India, after due enquiry, accepted the prayer and directed that he would be entitled to the freedom fighters pension with effect from 9.6.1994.
6393 of 1993 assailing the order of rejection and the High Court issued a direction to determine the issue afresh.
15724 of 1994 claiming that the benefit should be extended to him from the date when the Scheme was made applicable, i.e., from 1.8.1980.
1 submitted the application for grant of freedom fighters pension, the army record showed that he was enrolled in the army on 13.6.1939 and released from service on 14.2.1946 due to reduction of the Indian Army, but number due to association with the INA and was also paid service gratuity.
1, late Gurnam Singh Dhillon, had applied for grant of freedom fighter pension on the basis that he had participated in the freedom struggle and had joined the Indian National Army or Azad Hind Fauj for short the INA during 1941 42 in Singapore.
As his prayer was number accepted, he invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court again in CWP No.
After expiry of nine years, in 1989, he claimed that he, being an ex INA, was sent to New Guinea New British Islands and had suffered immense hardships and, accordingly, sought pension in terms of the Ministry of Home Affairs circular No.
Being grieved by the order of rejection, late Gurnam Singh approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
It was also observed that as during the pendency, the original claimant had expired and the wife was more than ninety years old, the amount should be paid within the period of six months from the date of the order.
The husband of the respondent No.
The aforesaid order was assailed by the Government in L.P.A. No.
The heart of the matter is whether the respondent would be entitled even from the date, i.e., 1.08.1980 when the scheme came into existence.
