Bombay High Court
Subhadrabai Dattu Gate vs The Union Of India And Others on 19 December, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
wp11952.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11952 OF 2016
Subhadrabai w/o Dattu Gate
age 90 years, Occ. Nil
R/o Kati, Tq. Tuljapur
Dist. Osmanabad Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India
through the Secretary to the Govt. of India
New Delhi.
2. The Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Second Floor NDCC-II Building,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi.
3. The Chief Manager,
The State Bank of India
Centralized Pension Processing Centre Dept.
Head Office, Methedix Complex
First Floor, ABIDS,
Hyderabad 500 001.
4. The State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary in the General
Administration Dept.,
Mantralaya Fort
Mumbai 400 032.
5. The Collector,
Osmanabad District,
Osmanabad Respondents
Mr. S.S. Choudhary, advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.B. Deshpand, ASG for respondent no. 1.
Mr. A.R. Kale, AGP for respondents 4 and 5.
Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, advocate for respondent no.2.
Mr. S.R. Deshpande, advocate for respondent no.3.
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:06:05 :::
{2}
wp11952.16.odt
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
DATE : 19th DECEMBER, 2017
JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the
respective parties.
3. Petitioner- widow of freedom fighter aged 90 yrs is praying for
quashment of communication issued by the Government of India
on 06-01-2015 rejecting her claim for disbursement of
freedom fighters' family pension to her after demise of her
husband, who was receiving freedom fighters' pension during his
lifetime.
4. According to petitioner, her husband by name Dattu Gate
participated in freedom movement for liberation of India and as
such, considering his request, the State of Maharashtra by order
dated 09.10.1991 granted freedom fighters' pension to him payable
with effect from 24.04.1989. The amount of pension was enhanced
subsequently as per the policy adopted by the State Government.
The Government of India also sanctioned provisional pension
amounting to Rs. 750/- in favour of deceased freedom fighter with
effect from 14.10.1991 onwards. The husband of petitioner passed
away on 30.09.1995 because of old age at village Kati leaving
behind his widow, petitioner Subhadrabai.
{3}
wp11952.16.odt
5. After demise of freedom fighter, considering the application
tendered by petitioner, the Collector, Osmanabad by order dated
05.01.1996 directed release of amount of monthly freedom fighters'
pension to her. Petitioner however, was not receiving the pension
receivable from the Union of India. She tendered application to the
Branch Manager of the Bank on 24.07.2007 putting forth her
grievance that she is not receiving freedom fighters' pension from
the Union of India. While tendering application to the bank, she
also transmitted said application to the Pay and Account Officer of
the Ministry of Home Affairs. After constant persuasion, petitioner
was communicated by the Under Secretary of Government of India
on 06.01.2015 that the deceased husband of petitioner who was a
freedom fighter passed away some 20 years back and, during the
intervening period, no claim on behalf of widow was received by the
Union of India. It was further stated that pension granted in
favour of deceased freedom fighter shall be deemed to have been
cancelled as per revised guidelines issued on 06.08.2014. Copy of
the guideline issued by the Union Government is placed on record.
In paragraph no. 5.2 it is recorded that after death of the
pensioner (whether freedom fighter himself or his spouse) the
transfer of pension to the spouse/daughter will only be considered
if she applies for transfer of pension within 6 months of the death.
Application received after 6 months shall not be considered by the
Bank but referred to the Ministry. The Ministry shall then take a
view whether to allow dependent pension or not or whether any
arrears are to be paid.
6. In the instant matter, though petitioner tendered application
belatedly, that ought not to have been rejected merely on the
{4}
wp11952.16.odt
ground of delay however, it would have been referred to the
Ministry for consideration. It is not a matter of dispute that
deceased husband of petitioner had participated in the freedom
struggle and the State of Maharashtra was regularly disbursing
freedom fighters' pension to him during his lifetime and, after his
demise, his widow, petitioner herein is receiving freedom fighters'
pension in accordance with the scheme framed by the State
Government. The fact that petitioner is a widow of deceased
freedom fighter and that she is receiving freedom fighters' pension
as per the scheme formulated by the State Government, is not a
matter of dispute. It also cannot be controverted that deceased
husband of petitioner was receiving pension granted by the Union
Government during his lifetime and that the widow after his
demise is entitled for the family pension. The identity of petitioner
is also not disputable since she is receiving freedom fighters'
pension released by the State Government. Petitioner is 90 years
of age and her claim ought not to have been rejected on technical
ground. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the
matter of Mukund Lal Bhandari and others vs. Union of India and
others reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2127 that the object
of framing of freedom fighters' pension scheme is to assist and
honour the freedom fighters and delay would not affect their
entitlement. In paragraph no. 4 of the judgment, the Honourable
Supreme Court has observed thus:
4. .....It is common knowledge that those
who participated in the freedom struggle either
at the National level or in the erstwhile Neezam
State are scattered all over the country and
most of them may even be inhabiting the
remotest parts of the rural areas. What is more
{5}
wp11952.16.odt
almost all of them must have now grown pretty
old if they are alive. Where the freedom fighters
are not alive and their widows and the
unmarried daughters have to prefer claims the
position may still be worst with regard to their
knowledge of the prescribed death. What is
more if the scheme has been introduced with
the genuine desire to assist and honour those
who had given the best part of their life for the
country it ill behoves the Government to raise
pleas of limitation against such claims. In fact
the Government, if it is possible for them to do
so, should find out the freedom fighters or their
dependents and approach them with the
pension instead of requiring them to make
applications for the same. That would be the
true spirit of working out such schemes."
Considering the object of the scheme, according to us, it
would not be open for the Union Government to deny the claim of
petitioner who is in evening of her life and is aged 90 years, by
raising technical pleas.
7. In view of reasons recorded above, writ petition is allowed.
Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to release the freedom fighters'
family pension amount receivable by petitioner together with
arrears, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of
four months from today and shall continue to pay her monthly
admissible family pension regularly. The communications issued
by the Union Government on 11th April, 2016 and 6th January,
2016 stand quashed. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs.
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI R.M.BORDE
{6}
wp11952.16.odt
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
