Freedom Fighters – Pension – Scheme – Eligibility – Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 – Claim for pension under – Validity – Held: Claim of respondent no. 1 was, for the first time, made on 27.12.1982, whereas the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme existed in year 1972, which was only amended in the year 1980 – Hence, it cannot be said that the respondent filed his claim promptly – Under the said scheme, a person eligible for the benefit should have remained underground for more than six months – It is not understood as to how respondent no. 1 could be categorised as a person who remained underground for a period of six months or more, merely on the basis of certificates issued by certain freedom fighters, who were themselves in jail during the period when they certified that respondent no.1 had remained underground – Even assuming that the certificate issued by the school authorities is authentic, simply because respondent no.1 did not attend the school during a particular period, when he was merely about 12 years of age, would not amount to respondent no.1 having remained underground because of his participation in the freedom struggle – Further, there was no recommendation of the State Government but the application of respondent no.1 was merely forwarded by the State Government – Mere fact that the State Government granted pension under some freedom fighters pension scheme of the State Government would not, by itself, entitle respondent no.1 to claim under the scheme of the Central Government, unless respondent no.1 fulfilled the conditions of the Central Government Scheme, which in the present case is SSS Pension Scheme, 1980 – On facts, the High Court overlooked the various requirements under the SSS Pension Scheme, 1980, which were to be fulfilled by respondent no.1 for grant of benefits of the Scheme, and allowed grant of pension to respondent no.1 merely on basis of sympathy, and because the State Government had granted benefit under a separate scheme of the State Government, and on certain presumption of respondent no.1 having remained underground for a certain period without there being proper authentication as required under the Scheme in question – Judgment of High Court set aside.
Union of India v. Avtar Singh, (2006) 6 SCC 493 : [2006]
3 Suppl. SCR 666 – 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.