Freedom Fighter Pension: Claim for pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme – First respondent at first instance had applied for grant of pension in the year 1997 claiming that he was underground during the Quit India Movement of 1942 i.e. during the period from August, 1942 up to a period of more than six months – Non-Availability of Records Certificate (NARC) from the Government was not produced along with the first application and merely a certificate, certified by the C.J.M., Madurai, was produced – The first application, which was forwarded to the appellant, was without any specific recommendation – Claim was considered and rejected – The said order became final and the same was not questioned – Nearly after
13 years of such rejection, first Respondent again claimed pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme on the plea of his imprisonment for more than six months for participating in the Quit India Movement – In the said application, he stated that he was imprisoned for more than six months i.e. from 05.01.1944 to 05.07.1944, which was in variance to the period which he has mentioned in the first application – Without issuing notice and without giving opportunity to the appellant to file counter affidavit, High Court disposed of petition by granting pension – On appeal, held: Claim of the first Respondent was under the scheme, notified by the appellant-Government – The scheme prescribes to file certain documents to authenticate the imprisonment of a claimant as a freedom fighter – Whether the claimant fulfills the criteria or not, it is for the competent authority to examine it – Moreover, when the application of the first Respondent was already rejected in the year 1997, when such rejection order became final, it was not open for the first Respondent to make a claim for second time for pension again by way of fresh application – When such serious factual disputes emerge for consideration, the High Court ought not to have disposed of the petition filed by the Respondent without even issuing notice and giving opportunity to file counter affidavit to rebut the allegations made by the appellant.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Whether the claimant fulfills the criteria or not, it is for the competent authority to examine it. Even before the application is considered by the competent authority, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court should not have issued any directions for grant of pension. In this case, it is also to be noticed that earlier the claim of the 1 st Respondent is already rejected and the said order has become final. After perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, we are of the view that no valid reasons have been assigned to grant relief to the 1st Respondent for grant of pension. It appears that the 1st Respondent has not disclosed his earlier rejection by producing the earlier orders while making the application for the second time before the appellant and also before the High Court. [Para 25][803-E-G]
2. In any event, when such serious factual disputes emerge for consideration, the High Court ought not to have disposed of the petition filed by the Respondent without even issuing notice and giving opportunity to file counter affidavit to rebut the allegations made by the appellant. [Para 26][803-H; 804-A]
3. In the instant case, the appellant stands on a better footing, for the reason that although the application made by the 1st Respondent on 10.04.1997 was rejected and the said order has become final, he again approached the appellant with the same request. Even before the Competent Authority considers the application, the 1st Respondent approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition and the High Court, not only entertained the petition, but disposed of the same without even notice and opportunity of filing counter affidavit to the appellant. Even the Division Bench of High Court has not considered various grounds raised by the appellant, while confirming the order of the Single Judge. [Paras 28, 29][804-D-F]
4. It may be true that the 1st Respondent is getting pension as per the scheme, mooted by the State, but, at the same time, to claim pension under the scheme of 1980, the 1st Respondent has to furnish the required proof as contemplated under the scheme. When the claim is under a particular scheme, unless one fulfills the eligibility criteria for grant of pension, as mentioned in the scheme, no applicant can claim such pensions, as a matter of right. [Para 30][804-G]
W.B. Freedom Fighters’ Organization v. Union of India and Others 2004 (7) SCC 716 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 665; Union of India v. Bikash R. Bhowmik and Others 2004 (7) SCC 722; Union of Indiav. Sitakant S.
Dubhashi and Anr. 2020 (3) SCC 297: [2020] 3
SCR 736 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.