A
UNION OF INDIA
v.
MOHAN SINGH AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 9, 1996
B
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)
Freedom Fighters Pe11sio11 Scheme.
t:
Claim for pe11sio11-Plimary evide11ce in support of-Ce1tificate of a11
MLA a11d a co-pliso11er that the claima11ts had 1111dergo11e impliso11111e11t for
C six mol1ths-Co11sidered by Govemment---Found that the claimants were not
a freedom fighter~High Court holding that in view of the evidence produced
by the clai111a11ts, they should be declared freedom fighters--011 appeal held,
Gove'ni111e11t already considered the doc11me11ts a11d came to the conclusion
that these docu111e11ts were 11ot sufficient to prove that the responde11ts had
D suffered imp1iso11111e11t-High Co wt 11ot to have i11dulged i11 appreciation of
evide11ce in this regard which is the function of the Govem111C11t.
Mukz111d Lal Bha11dmi & Ors. v. U11io11 of India & Ors., [1993) Supp.
3 sec 2, relied on.
E
·CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.12314 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.6.1995 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 3790of1994.
F
N.N. Goswami, Hemant Sharma and P. Parmeswaran for the Appel-
lant.
M.P. Jha, Sanjeev Walia, A.K. Chopra, Anil Mittal and Manoj
Swamp for the Respondents.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
H
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order
686
\
U.0.1. v. MOHAN SINGH
687
dated June 1, 1995 made by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil A
Writ Petition No. 3790 of 1994. The first respondent, claiming to be a
freedom fighter, made an 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 MLA and co-prisoner.-
B
That certificate was considered by the appellant Government, as per the
directions of the High Court in an earlier writ petition, and it is found that
the respondent was not a freedom fighter and, therefore, not entitled to
the pension under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme. The respon-
dents again challenged the decision in the present writ petition. The High
Court in the impugned order has ·held that in view of the evidence C
produced by the respondents, they must be declared freedom fighters.
Accordingly, the writ petition has been allowed. Hence, this appeal by
special leave.
This Court in Mukund Lal Bhanda1i & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., D
(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 E
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 F
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 G
stands set aside. The writ petition stands dismissed but under the cir-
cumstances without costs.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
H
Lex