Union of India Vs. Mohan Singh & Ors [1996] INSC 1092 (9 September 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K. Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
We
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated June 1,1995 made by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil
Writ Petition No. 3790 of 1994. The first respondent, claiming to be a freedom
fighter, made on application on August 1, 1972 for pension under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme
framed by the Government of India.
The
Primary evidence in support of his undergoing imprisonment for six months has
been based on a Certificate of an HLA and co-prisoner. The certificate was
considered by the appellant Government, as per the directions of the High Court
in an earlier writ petition, and it is round that the respondent was not a
freedom fighter and, therefore, not entitled to the pension under the Freedom
Fighters' Pension Scheme. The respondents again challenged the decision in the present
writ petition. The High Court in the impugned order has held that in view of
the evidence produced by the respondents, they must be declared freedom
fighters.
Accordingly,
the writ petition has been allowed. Hence, this appeal by special leave. 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.
It is
seen that the High Court had directed the Government, in the earlier writ
petition, and in compliance thereof the Government of India had considered the
documents relied upon by the respondents and came to the conclusion, as a fact,
that these documents are not sufficient to conclude that the respondents had
suffered imprisonment. The High Court found it, on appreciation of evidence, to
be sufficient, which the High Court cannot embark upon.
The
appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the High Court stands set aside.
The writ petition stands dismissed but under the circumstances without costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
