judgement:
ivil Appeal No. 3838 of 1988.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.6.1987 of the Tamil Nadu High Court in W.A. No. 555 of 1984.
K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, B.K. Prasad, A.K. Srivastava, P. Parmeshwaran for the Appellants.
A.T.M. Sampath and K.V. Sreekumar for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VERMA, J.
This matter brings to the fore once again the ineptitude with which litigation is conducted quite often on behalf of the Government of India and State Governments even when important issues having lasting and wide repercussions are involved.
The point in this case relates to the validity of a policy of the railway administration and is likely to affect the staff pattern in several units.
Inspite of this fact, to support validity of the impugned policy the re quired materials were not produced in the High Court and to overcome the adverse decision several opportunities given by us to produce the entire relevant record were not availed.
The learned Additional Solicitor General informed us after several adjournments that better performance is not possi ble.
We, therefore, concluded the hearing and proceed to decide on the available materials.
It is indeed fortunate for the appellants that our conclusion is in their favour.
The railway administration with its countrywide network can help to improve this situation by a genuine effort in this direction and thereby contribute also to saving of needless expense and time.
We, therefore, direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India.
In view of the situation indicated above, we are mentioning only 898 those facts which are necessary for deciding this matter and which are accepted by both the sides.
It is not unlikely that there may be more material in the available records of the appellants to support our conclusion.
Briefly stated the controversy in this matter relates only to the employees working in the Inspection Wing of the Production Control Organization (for short 'P.C.O. ') of the Integral Coach Factory, Perambur.
The grievance of these employees in the Inspection Wing is to the implementation of the circular dated 8.6.1982 of the General Manager 's Office (Personnel Branch/Fur.), Madras of the Integral Coach Factory issued in supersession of the earlier circulars on the subject with the Railway Boards approval to treat the Progress Wing alone of the P.C.O. as a separate cadre.
The grievance of the employees in the Inspection Wing is that there is no reasonable basis for this classification of the Progress Wing of the P.C.O. separately denying the same benefit to those in the Inspection Wing.
In short, the employees of the Inspection Wing of the P.C.O. also want to be in a separate cadre like those in the Progress Wing and absorbed perma nently in the P.C.O. without the risk of being reverted to the shop floor from which they had been taken and where their lien continues.
A brief history of the Production Control Organization in the Integral Coach Factory, Perambur, may now be given.
The P.C.O. of the Integral Coach Factory was constituted to ensure quality control of the production in the factory.
It comprises of four wings which include the Progress and Inspection Wings.
It appears that the policy for manning the different wings of the P.C.O. remained nebulous for quite long and several changes therein were made from time to time to accommodate the staff 's point of view.
To begin with, persons from different trades in the shop floor were taken on deputation for the different wings of the P.C.O. For the Progress Wing of the P.C.O., there was also some direct recruitment, but the same was stopped after some time proba bly in the year 1958 and it was decided that the posts in the Progress Wing be filled by taking persons on deputation from the shop floor.
On 22.4.1963, the Railway Board laid down uniform policy for the P.C.Os.
in all units of the Indian Railways according to which all the posts in the P.C.Os. were made ex cadre and every employee posted in the P.C.O. was to be from a trade in shop floor.
The employees transferred from the shop floor to the P.C.O. were to retain their lien in the shop floor and deemed to be on temporary transfer.
This gave rise to some practical difficulty and the permanently absorbed staff in the P.C.O. were given option to revert to the 899 shop floor.
The staff directly recruited in the P.C.O. were to be allotted a trade and given the option for getting absorbed in the shop floor.
On 13.10.1964, a modification was made which is contained in the G.M. (P) 's letter No. PB(S)/M/6/ATC which refers to the Railway Board 's letter No. E(NG) 59SR 6 22 dated 22.4.
This was the first stage, as described by the learned Additional Solicitor General, for the employees in the P.C.O. of the Integral Coach Facto ry, Perambur.
At the next stage.
this policy was further modified for the Inspection Wing by a circular dated 13.8.1965 of the Office of the GM/PB/Shell of the Integral Coach Factory.
This was a half way measure implemented straightaway in the Inspection Wing, but could not be imple mented in the other three wings, namely, Progress, Planning and Time Study, because of certain practical difficulties therein.
According to this modification, the Inspection Wing was to form a separate ex cadre unit and the employees in the Inspection Wing were given proforma position in the cadre posts in their trade and could be reverted to their parent cadre in the shop floor in the position which they occupied in the shop floor.
This again met with difficulty in implementation giving rise to circular dated 29.9.1967 of the Office of the General Manager/Personnel Branch `Staff ' of the Integral Coach Factory.
Option was given to the staff in the Progress, Planning and Time Study Wings of the P.C.O. to get absorbed and interpolated in the shop floor leaving the Inspection Wing separate.
This circular dated 29.9.
1967 was struck down by the Madras High CoUrt vide its order dated 22.8.
1975 in a petition filed by employees of the shop floor on the ground that the General Manager of the Integral Coach Factory had no power to act inconsistently with the Railway Board 's circular and the remedy is to modify the Railway Boards circular dated 22.4.1963.
Accord ingly, the procedure laid down in the order dated 29.9.
1967 was cancelled and all posts in the P.C.O. were declared ex cadre by a circular dated 28.8. 1977 of the General Manag er 's Office (Personnel Branch/Fur.) of the Integral Coach Factory.
A modification m the earlier proposal was made by this order.
All employees were to be allotted a trade and given option either to go to the shop floor or remain perma nently in the P.C.O. However, this too could not be imple mented on account of the protest of the staff and the unions representing them.
At the next stage, a proposal was made by the Integral CoaCh Factory to the Railway Board which is contained in the letter dated 1.3.
1982 from the Chief Personnel Officer, Integral Coach Factory to the Joint director, Establishment, Railway Board.
This was in pursu ance to the suggestion of the staff itself that the Progress Wing alone be treated as separate cadre in the P.C.O. and not the remaining wings.
Reasons in support of the proposal were also given therein.
The Railway Board 900 conveyed its approval to this proposal in its letter No. E(NG) dated 20.3.
This led to the issuance of the order dated 8.6.1982 by General Manager, Integral Coach Factory, stating that in accordance with the Railway Board 's approval, the Progress Wing alone of the P.C.O. would be a separate cadre and not the remaining wings.
As a result of this decision, the Inspection Wing is not treated as a separate cadre unlike the Progress Wing.
This is the basis of the grievance of the employees of the Inspection Wing which led to the filing of the writ petition giving rise to this appeal.
Writ Petition No. 4468 of 1982 filed in the Madras High Court by the respondents was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 7.4.1984.
Thereafter, another step was taken by the railway administration which may be mentioned.
The Integral Coach Factory issued a circular on 21.9.1984 conveying Railway Board 's decision contained in the letter dated 13.9.1984 regarding the staffing pattern of the P.C.Os.
in the workshops including the Integral Coach Factory.
Accord ing to this decision, all posts in the P.C.O. except the Progress Wing continued to be ex cadre posts and the tenure of these posts was directed to be strictly adhered to.
The existing position regarding en cadering of the posts in the P.C.O. in all wings of Southern Railway and Progress Wing of Integral Coach Factory was allowed to be continued.
In short, it was a reversion to the initial stage contained in the order dated 22.4.1963 of the Railway Board except for the Progress Wing.
The writ appeal of the railway adminis tration was thereafter dismissed by the High Court on 22.6.1987.
The further facts are not material for deciding the point in controversy.
In short, the employees of the Inspection Wing which include the respondents, contend that they are entitled to be treated similarly as the employees of the Progress Wing, whose continuance in the P.C.O. without the risk of rever sion to the shop floor is assured by the adoption of this policy.
This contention of the respondents has been accepted by the High Court.
The acceptance of the respondents claim results in striking down the Railway 's policy to this extent of not treating the Inspection Wing also as a separate cadre like the Progress Wing.
It also affects the prospects of those in the shop floor who are denied the chance of being taken in the Inspection Wing of the P.C.O. because of the continuance permanently of those already there retaining their lien in the shop floor.
It is admitted that the serv ice conditions in the P.C.O. are better than those of the corresponding posts in the shop floor.
This is the reason for those in the P.C.O. not wanting to revert to the shop floor and the keenness of persons from the shop 901 floor to go to the P.C.O.
Some employees working in the shop floor have preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9774 of 1990 arising out of a connected matter and have supported the stand of the railway administration taken in Civil Appeal No. 3838 of 1988.
It is common ground before us that the Inspection Wing of the P.C.O. performs the function of inspecting the quali ty of the products of the Integral Coach Factory and thereby ensures quality control of the products.
The Progress, Planning and Time Study Wings of the P.C.O. are involved in the manufacture of these products and come at the stage relating to manufacture of the products.
There is thus an intelligible differentia between the function of the Inspec tion Wing on one side and the remaining wings of the P.C.O. on the other.
The background indicated earlier leading to the decision by the Railway Board that the Progress Wing alone would be treated as a permanent cadre in the Integral Coach Factory and not the others, was reached on the basis of experience over a long period and was in consonance with the opinion of the Staff Council representing the views of the staff of the Integral Coach Factory.
It appears that continuity in Progress Wing and rotation in the Inspection Wing was considered desirable for better efficiency.
The Railway Board being competent to effect necessary changes in the staff pattern of the various units under its control for the purpose of streamlining the Organisation and improving their efficiency, took this decision for this purpose which is consistent with the view of the staff Council represent ing the interest of the entire staff in the P.C.O.
It does appear that the railway administration did want at one time to treat all units in the P.C.O. as separate permanent cadres but practical difficulty in the implementation of that policy and opposition by the staff impelled it to give up the same.
Even here we find that while those already in the Inspection Wing want to remain there permanently, the others who are in the shop floor and would be denied the prospect of being taken in the Inspection Wing of the P.C.O. if the respondents ' contention is upheld, are opposed to this view.
The decision of the Railway Board, therefore, takes into account all points of view and makes an attempt to reconcile the conflicting interests while ensuring im provement in the efficiency of the unit.
If as a matter of policy the Railway Board approved the proposal made by the management of the Integral Coach Factory to treat the Progress Wing alone of the P.C.O. as a separate cadre and not so the remaining wings including the Inspection Wing, the same cannot be faulted unless it is held to be discrimi natory or arbitrary.
In view of the nature of functions performed by the four different wings of the P.C.O., we are unable to agree with the High Court 's view that the Inspec tion 902 Wing and the Progress Wing of the P.C.O. must be classified together and treated as separate cadres.
It is significant that even at some of the earlier stages, Inspection Wing was treated differently as a matter of policy.
The work of the Inspection Wing, as indicated earlier on the basis of undisputed facts before us, is to inspect the quality of the manufactured products to ensure quality control, while the Progress Wing is concerned with the stage prior to manufacture of the products.
For the efficiency of the Inspection Wing which performs the duty of exercising vigilance over the production for the sake of ensuring quality of the products, it is not unreasonable to think that a periodic rotation of its personnel would be conducive to efficient functioning of the Inspection Wing.
The perma nency of personnel in the Inspection Wing can promote leth argy in them and may also tend to create vested interests.
The possibility of change therein makes the existing person nel more vigilant to avoid any lapse which could be discov ered by the replacement.
The highest possible standards of vigilance by them is achieved by the possibility of rever sion to the shop floor against their will if the required degree of efficiency and standard in performance of the duty is not maintained.
The work of the Inspection Wing being at the end point with no further scrutiny thereafter, rotation of its personnel is likely to promote the efficiency of the unit.
This factor is sufficient to provide a reasonable basis for classification of the Inspection Wing differently from the Progress Wing and there is no ground to complain of discrimination, if according to the Railway Board 's policy, the Inspection Wing is not treated as a separate cadre like the Progress Wing.
The power of the railway administration to formulate such a policy provided it is not discriminatory being rightly not challenged, this conclusion alone is sufficient to uphold the action of the railway administra tion.
The contrary view taken by the High Court cannot, therefore, be sustained.
We find that the competence of the Railway Board to change the staff pattern of the P.C.O. in the Kharagpur Railway Workshop of South Eastern Railway, was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The decision there was contained in a Memorandum of 1979 declaring that the posts in the P.C.O. in the Kharagpur Railway Workshop would be treated as 'ex cadre ' differently from the policy in Integral Coach Factory.
The Tribunal rejected the chal lenge based on discrimination between two units and a spe cial leave petition filed in this Court was dismissed.
This Court in S.K. Chakraborthy and Ors.
vs Union of India & Ors.
, [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 425 upheld the 903 authority of the Railway Board to adopt such a policy to bring about the necessary changes in the staff pattern for improving the efficiency of the administration of units under its control and for the purpose of streamlining the Organisation provided there was no discrimination.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside resulting in the dismissal of the Writ Petition filed in the High Court.
No costs.
A copy of this judgment be sent to the Chairman, Railway Board as directed.
V.P.R. Appeal allowed.

summary:
The P.C.O. of the Integral Coach Factory comprises of four wings which include the Progress and Inspection Wings.
The order dated 8.6.1982 by General Manager stated that in accordance with the Railway Board 's approval, the Progress Wing alone of the P.C.O. would be a separate cadre and not the remaining wings.
The Inspection Wing was not treated as a separate cadre unlike the Progress Wing.
Being aggrieved, the respondents the employees in the Inspection Wing filed Writ Petition in the High Court which was allowed by the Single Bench.
Meanwhile the Integral Coach Factory issued a circular on 21.9.1984 conveying Railway Board 's decision dated 13.9.1984 regarding the staffing pattern of the P.C.Os.
in the workshops including the Integral Coach Factory.
Accord ing to this decision, all posts in the P.C.O. except the Progress Wing continued to be ex cadre posts and the tenure of these posts was directed to be strictly adhered to.
The existing position regarding en cadering of the posts in the P.C.O. in all wings of Southern Railway and Progress Wing of Integral Coach Factory was allowed to be continued.
The writ appeal of the railway administration was dis missed by the Division Bench of the High Court, against which the present appeal by special leave was preferred by the Railway Administration.
896 It was contended that the Inspection Wing performed the function of inspecting the quality of the products of the Integral Coach Factory and thereby ensured quality control of the products, whereas the Progress, Planning and Time Study Wings of the P.C.O. were involved in the manufacture of these products and there was thus an intelligible differ entia between the function of the Inspection Wing on one side and the remaining Wings on the other.
Allowing the appeal of the Railway Administration, this Court, HELD: 1.
In view of the nature of functions performed by the four different wings of the P.C.O., the High Court 's view that the Inspection Wing and the Progress Wing of the P.C.O. must be classified together and treated as separate cadres, cannot be accepted.
It is significant that even at some of the earlier stages, Inspection Wing was treated differently as a matter of policy.
[901H 902A] 2.
The work of the Inspection Wing, is to inspect the quality of the manufactured products to ensure quality control, while the Progress Wing is concerned with the stage prior tO manufacture of the products.
For the efficiency of the Inspection Wing which performs the duty of exercising vigilance over the production for the sake of ensuring quality of the products, it is not unreasonable to think that a periodic rotation of its personnel would be conducive to efficient functioning of the Inspection Wing.
The perma nency of personnel in the Inspection Wing can promote leth argy in them and may also tend to create vested interests.
The possibility of change therein makes the existing person nel more vigilant to avoid any lapse which could be discov ered by the replacement.
The highest possible standards of vigilance by them is achieved by the possibility of rever sion to the shop floor against their will if the required degree of efficiency and standard in performance of the duty is not maintained.
[902B D] 3.
The work of the Inspection Wing being at the end point with no further scrutiny thereafter, rotation of its personnel is likely to promote the efficiency of the unit.
This factor is sufficient to provide a reasonable basis for classification of the Inspection Wing differently from the Progress Wing and there is no ground to complain of discrim ination, if according to the Railway Board 's policy, the Inspection Wing is not treated as a separate cadre like the Progress Wing.
The power of the railway administration to formulate such a policy provided it is not discriminatory being rightly not challenged, this conclusion alone is sufficient to uphold the action of the railway administra tion.
[902D F] 897 4.
The authority Of the Railway Board to adopt the policy to bring about the necessary changes in the staff pattern for improving the efficiency of the administration of units under its control and for the purpose of streamlin ing the Organisation provided there was no discrimination is undoubted.
[903A] S.K. Chakarborthy and Ors.
vs Union of India & Ors.
, [1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 425, referred.


judgement:
erred Case No. 2 of 1991.
(Under Article 139 A(1) of the Constitution of India) Salman Khurshid, Madhan Panikkar, Mrs. Vimla Sinha and Gopal Singh for the Appellant.
Kapil Sibal and Arun Jaitley, Additional Solicitor Generals, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and C.V.S. Rao for the Respond ents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by section RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.
The above case has been regis tered in pursuance of our order dated 23.11.90 in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.546/90 transferring O.A.No.191 of 1990 under Article 139 (A) of the Constitution of India from the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna.
the appellant 's prayer is to dispose of the above case along with Civil Appeal Nos.
5439 52/90 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.
13525 38 of 1990).
The relief sought for by the appellant before the CAT, Patna Bench was similar to the one before the CAT, Principal Bench, Delhi that being to declare the second proviso to Rule 4 of C.S.E. as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
On 29.8.90 the 114 Patna Bench in M.P. No. 36/90 granted an interim relief which reads thus: "Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
The applicant may be allowed to appear at the Civil Services Main Examination, 1990, subject to result of the final orders in the original application.
The respondents are directed accordingly.
Copy be given to the parties today." Mr. Salman Khurshid appearing for the appellant submit ted that the interim direction given by the Patna Bench if covered by the directions given in paras 5(ii) and 6 of the order of CAT, Delhi he has no further submission to be made, and the implementation of those directions will satisfy his relief.
We in our order dated 7.12.1990 have clarified certain directions given by the CAT, Delhi with reference to the various interim orders passed by it in a number of OAs and finally gave the following direction: "Hence we permit all those candidates falling under Para Nos. 5 (ii), 6 and 7 to sit for the main examination subject to the condition that each candidate satisfies the Secretary, Union public Service Commission that he/she falls within these categories and that the concerned candidates have passed the preliminary exami nation of 1990 and have also applied for the main examination within the due date.
This permission is only for the ensuing examina tion.
, As we are now permitting those who have passed the preliminary examination of 1990 and have applied for the main examination on the basis of the unquestioned and unchallenged directions given under paras 5(ii), 6 and 7 of the judgment of the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, the same benefit is extended to the other appellants also who satisfy those condi tions as mentioned under paras 5 (ii), 6 and 7.
" The above direction virtually confirms the direction given by the Patna Bench in M.P. No.36/90 allowing the appellant therein to sit for C.S.E. (Main) of 1990.
However, we have not subjected our direction with any rider in the sense that that direction will be subjected to the result of the appeals.
In fact, we have in the judgment rendered today in Civil Appeal Nos.
5439 52/90 and batches given a direction to the respondents inclusive of the Union Public Service Commission that "all those candidates who have appeared for the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 1990, pursuant to our permission given in the order dated 7.12.90 and who have 115 come out successfully in the said examination and thereby have qualified themselves for the interview, shall be per mitted to appear for the interview test and that if those candidates completely and satisfactorily qualify themselves by getting through the written examinations as well as the interview shah be given proper allocation and appointment on the basis of their rank in the merit list notwithstanding the restriction imposed by the second proviso and our present judgment upholding the validity of the said proviso since the respondents have not questioned and challenged the directions given by CAT, Principal Bench, Delhi in para graphs 5(ii), 6 and 7 of its judgment dated 20.8.1990.
We would like to make it clear that the unchallenged directions given by the CAT in its judgment as well as directions given by us in our order dated 7.12.90 are not.controlled by any rider in the sense that the said directions were subject to the result of the cases and hence those directions would be confined only to those candidates who appeared for CSE, 1990 and no further.
The seniority of those successful candidates in CSE, 1990 would depend on the service to which they have qualified.
The seniority of the left out candidates would be maintained in case they have joined the service to which they have been allocated on the result of previous CSE and such candidates will not be subjected to suffer loss of seniority as held by the CAT, Delhi in its judgment".
Therefore, we hold that this appellant is also entitled for the same above benefit.
In other respects, this trans ferred case is dismissed for the reasons mentioned in the main judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.
5439 52/90 and batches.
No order as to costs.
R.P. Appeal dismissed.

dataset_name: IN-Abs

summary:
The appellant filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, for a declaration that the second proviso to rule 4 of Civil Services Examination Rules was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitu tion of India.
By an interim order the Tribunal allowed the appellant to appear at the Civil Services (Main) Examina tion, 1990, subject to the result of the final orders in the original application.
The said application was transferred to this Court.
In a bunch of similar cases, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi upheld the validity of Rule 4 of Civil Services Examination Rules.
In appeal to this Court (Civil Appeal Nos. 5439 52/90)** by an interim order dated 7.12.1990, the appellants therein were allowed to appear in Civil Services (Main) Examination, 1990; and while finally disposing of the appeals, the judgment of CAT, Delhi was affirmed.
Dismissing the case of the appellant in view of the judgment in C.As Nos.
5439 52/90,** this Court, HELD: The appellant was also entitled to the same benefits as granted to the appellants in Civil Appeals No. 5439 52/90, namely: (i) All those candidates who appeared for the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 1990, pursuant to this Court 's order dated 7.12.90 and qualified themselves for the inter view, shall be permitted to appear for the interview test and that if those candidates completely and satisfactorily qualify themselves by getting through the written examina tions as well as the interview shall be given proper alloca tion and appointment on the basis of their rank in the merit list notwithstanding the restriction imposed by the second proviso to rule 4 and this Court 's judgment 113 upholding the validity of the said proviso since the re spondents have no/ questioned and challenged the directions given by C.A.T. Principal Bench, Delhi in its judgment dated 20.8.1990.
(ii) The un challenged directions given by the C.A.T. in its judgment as well as directions given by this Court in its order dated 7.12.90 were not controlled by any rider in the sense that the said directions were subject to the result of the cases and hence those directions would be confined only to those candidates who appeared for C.S.E. 1990 and no further.
The seniority of those successful candidates in C.S.E. 1990 would depend on the service to which they have qualified.
The seniority of the left out candidates would be maintained in ease they have joined the service to which they have been allocated on the result of previous C.S.E. and such candidates will not be subjected to suffer loss of seniority as held by the C.A.T. Delhi in its judgment.
[pp 114 H, 115A D] **Mohan Kumar Singhania & Ors.
vs Union of India, [1991] Supp. 1 SCR 46


judgement:
(c) No. 75 Of 1991.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) R.P. Singh for the Petitioners.
G. Ramaswamy, Attorney General, A.K. Srivastava and Ms. A. Subhashini (N.P.) for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, CJ.
This is an application under Arti cle 32 of the Constitution by 55 persons both men and women claiming the benefit of the scheme of pension for Freedom Fighters.
It is the common contention of the petitioners that they had joined the Arya Samaj movement in the late 1930s within the erstwhile Nizam 's State of Hyderabad and each of them had been convicted under different provisions of the crimi nal law then prevailing within the Nizam 's State and sen tenced to various terms of imprisonment.
In the case of most of them the term of imprisonment was around two years.
They maintained that the Arya Samaj movement has been equated with the freedom struggle and the benefit of the pension scheme is admissible to those who had participated in the movement as Arya Samajists.
According to them, in the prime of youth the petitioners had been motivated by the call of Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Nation and leaders like the late Pt.
Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and others and had given up their home and hearth and had joined the agitation within the Nizam 's State and suffered the consequences.
Since their claim for pension had not been accepted by the Government of India they have applied to this Court for appropriate direction for being admitted to the benefits of the scheme.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents by Under Secretary Alam in the Ministry of Home Affairs who while not disputing the assertion of the peti tioners that the Union of India had accepted the Arya Samaj movement to be a part of the freedom struggle has disputed the entitlement of pension in the case of most of the peti tioners.
118 Petitioners have relied upon the decision of this Court dated July 16, 1991, in Writ Petition No. 1190/89 Duli Chand & Ors.
vs Union of India & Ors.) where similar relief claimed by 41 persons had been accepted.
That case, accord ing to the counter affidavit, was disposed of ex pane and by accepting all the allegations of the petitioners therein.
In view of the dispute now raised in the counter affidavit, particularly with reference to the factual aspects, we do not think it would be appropriate to dispose of the present petition by adopting the order of this Court in the said writ petition.
It is the accepted position that if petitioners suffered the minimum sentence of six months of imprisonment on ac count of their participation in the Arya Samaj movement they would be entitled to pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme.
The question for examination, there fore, is whether petitioners did suffer such sentence.
As we have already mentioned most of the petitioners have produced material to show that they had participated as alleged and were sentenced to imprisonment for terms exceed ing six months.
While they were undergoing sentence, without their praying for any remission, a general amnesty was declared by the then Nizam on his birthday and the sentence was reduced and the petitioners were set free.
Freedom Fighters ' Pension Scheme of 1972 was renamed as "Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980".
The bro chure published by the Union of India indicates: "A person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment for six months in the mainland jails before independence in the struggle for independence is eligible to be admitted to the benefits of the pension".
It has already been indicated that each of the petitioners had been convicted and was ordered to suffer imprisonment of more than six months.
The petitioners ' assertion that they did not claim remission has not been doubted or disputed.
In the facts of the case it would be appropriate to hold that each of the petitioners satisfied the condition for earning the benefit of pension and the fact that while undergoing sentence which was for a period beyond six months remission had been granted and they were let off earlier would not take away their right to earn pension.
Learned Attorney General appearing for the respond ents has accepted this construction of the entitlement clause.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the re spondents are directed to admit each of the petitioners to pension under the Scheme within two months hence.
The pen sion be paid with effect from 1st August 1990 as in the connected case.
No costs.
V.P.R. Petition allowed.

summary:
In the Application under Article 32 of the Constitution by 55 persons claiming the benefit of the scheme of pension for Freedom Fighters, the petitioners contended that they had joined the Arya Samaj movement in the late 1930s within the erstwhile Nizam 's State of Hyderabad and were convicted under different provisions of the criminal law and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment; that the Arya Samaj move ment had been equated with the freedom struggle and the benefit of the pension scheme was admissible to those who had participated in the movement.
The respondents while not disputing the assertion of the petitioners that the Union of India has accepted the Arya Samaj movement to be a part of the freedom struggle, has disputed the entitlement of pension in the case of most of the petitioners.
Allowing the petition, this Court, HELD: 1.
Freedom Fighters ' Pension Scheme of 1972 which was renamed as "Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980" indicates: "A person who has suffered a minimum im prisonment for six months in the mainland jails before independence in the struggle for independence is eligible to be admitted to the benefits of the pension.
" Each of the petitioners had been convicted and was ordered to suffer imprisonment of more than six months.
While they were under going sentence, without their praying for any 'emission, a general amnesty was declared by the then Nizam on his birth day and the sentence was reduced and the petitioners were set free.
[118 E F,D] 2.
In the facts of the case it would be appropriate to hold that each of the petitioners satisfied the condition for earning the benefit of pension and the fact that while undergoing sentence which was for a period beyond 117 six months remission had been granted and they were let off earlier would not take away their right to earn pension.
[118F] Duli Chand & Ors.
vs Union of India & Ors.
,W.P.No.
1190/89, dated, July 16, 1991 by the Supreme Court of India, followed.