Himachal Pradesh High Court
Union Of India vs Mahanti Devi And Another on 3 September, 2025
2025:HHC:30407-DB REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
LPA No.102 of 2017 a/w
LPA No.96 of 2017
Decided on: 03.09.2025
__________________________________________________________
.
1. LPA No.102 of 2017
Union of India ...Appellant
Versus
Mahanti Devi and another ....Respondents
AND
2. LPA No.96 of 2017
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Appellant
Versus
Mahanti Devi and another ....Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1Whether approved for reporting?. Yes.
For the appellant(s): Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy
Solicitor General of India [Senior
Advocate] with Mr. Rajeev Sharma,
Advocate, for the appellant in
LPA No.102 of 2017.
Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional
Advocate General, for the appellant
in LPA No.96 of 2017.
For the respondents: Ms. Vandana Kuthiala and
Mr. Devi Singh, Advocates, for
respondent No.1 in LPA No.102 of
2017.
Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional
Advocate General, for respondent
No.2-State in LPA No.102 of 2017.
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2025:HHC:30407-DB -2- REPORTABLE
Ms. Vandana Kuthiala and
Mr. Devi Singh, Advocates, for
respondent No.1 in LPA No.96 of
2017.
Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy
Solicitor General of India [Senior
.
Advocate] with Mr. Rajeev Sharma,
Advocate, for respondent No.2-UOI
in LPA No.96 of 2017.
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral]
The present appeals by the Union of India
& State of Himachal Pradesh, have been preferred
against the judgment dated 02.01.2017 passed by the
learned Single Judge in CWP No.10620 of 2021, titled
Mahanti Devi Versus Union of India & Anr. filed by
the widow of the Freedom Fighter, who is asking
for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Pension
Scheme, 1980 from the date of her application
and had challenged the rejection order dated 11.04.2007
[Annexure PK in the writ file] and prayed for payment
of arrears of pension alongwith interest @12% and had
also asked the State to decide her application within a
period of three months as per law laid down in Mukand
Lal Bhandari Vs. Union of India, AIR 1993, SC 2127.
2. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petition and directed that the financial assistance be
granted under the updated Scheme i.e. "Scheme for
the Grant of Financial Assistance by the Government
2025:HHC:30407-DB -3- REPORTABLE
of Himachal Pradesh to the Freedom Fighters of Himachal
Pradesh" w.e.f. 01.01.2012, which is the date of knowledge.
Resultantly directions were issued to grant pension both
.
under the Central Scheme and State Scheme and the
findings were recorded that there was no material to show
that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Teg Singh had
not undergone sufferings because of his externment and
other affidavits of the Freedom Fighters.
3. Apparently, in spite of lament expressed by the
Apex Court in Mukand Lal Bhandari's case regarding the
high objective of the Scheme keeping in view the fact that it
was introduced to give benefits to Freedom Fighters to
honour and mitigate the sufferings of those who had given
their all for the country. The State and the Union of India
still continue to litigate and have objected to the directions
issued by the learned Single Judge.
4. In Gurdial Singh Versus Union of India &
Others, (2001) 8 SCC 8, it was noticed that a liberal and
not a technical approach is required to be followed while
determining the merits of the case of a person seeking
pension under the Scheme and it was on the basis of
evidence that is probabilised and a presumption is required
to be drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted
by cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence. The
2025:HHC:30407-DB -4- REPORTABLE
hypertechnical approach was thus castigated while
granting the relief of pension both by the State of Punjab
and the Union of India which had been rejected in the said
.
case on the ground that discrepancies and contradictions
regarding the fact of joining Indian National Army in
September, 1942, were found, inspite of the fact that an
original driving licence issued at Bangkok had been relied
upon by holding that getting the record from a Foreign
country is very cumbersome and expensive process.
5. The perusal of the order of rejectment dated
11.04.2007 which came to be passed by the respondents
[Annexure PK], which was in pursuance of an earlier
direction to consider the case in Civil Writ Petition No.374
of 2000, decided on 02.01.2006
6. Thus, the reasoning given to reject the said
claim which was to be considered in view of the law
laid down in Mukand Lal Bhandari's case are as under:-
"(i) He has not furnished any acceptable evidence
duly verified by the State Government, in support
of his claimed suffering of externment (as
indicated in para 2 above).
(ii) He has not furnished a valid Non-availability of
Records Certificate (NARC) from the State
Government (i.e., the competent authority)
containing all ingredients prescribed therefor (as
indicated in para 2 above).
(iii) In the absence of valid NARC, secondary
evidence, i.e. Personal Knowledge Certificates
(PKCs) cannot be considered and are not
acceptable. The PKC submitted by him from
2025:HHC:30407-DB -5- REPORTABLE
Shri Sant Ram, Advocate, Former Home Minister-
cum-Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur State, has
however been scrutinized. The same is not
acceptable.as the certifier has not furnished any
record/evidence of his own duration of suffering
in connection with freedom movement (i.e., he has
furnished no evidence to establish that he is an
.
eligible certifier).
(iv) The State Government vide its report dated
26.8.1996 has stated that on examination of
reports, it was found that there is no indication of
the participation of Shri Teg Singh in the Praja
Mandal Movement. Thus, the report of the State
Government is not positive."
7. A perusal of the above Guidelines would
go on to show that the acceptable evidence duly
verified by the State Government in support of his/her
claim, suffering of externment (as indicated in Para 2)
talks about the Certifier Veteran Freedom Fighter in
respect of externment and the applicant should belong
to the same Administrative Unit before the reorganization
of States and their area of operation must be the same.
As per the 1972 Scheme as modified in 1980, the
eligible dependents are not only the widower/widow if he/
she has not re-married apart from mother, father and
un-married daughters. The claims have to be proved
as per Clause 9(c) of Swatantrata Sainik Samman
Pension Scheme, 1980 [Formerly known as Freedom
Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972], in the case of externment.
Clauses 3 and 9 of the above Scheme of 1980 read as
under:-
2025:HHC:30407-DB -6- REPORTABLE
"3. WHO ARE ELIGIBLE DEPENDENTS:
For the purpose of grant of Samman pension,
family includes (if the freedom fighter is not alive)
mother, father, widower/widow if he/she has not
since remarried, unmarried daughters.
.
Not more than one eligible dependent can be
granted pension and in the event of availability of
more than one dependent the sequence of
eligibility will be widow/widower, unmarried
daughters, mother and father."
9. HOW TO PROVE THE CLAIMS (EVIDENCE
REQUIRED)
The applicant should furnish the documents
indicated below whichever is applicable:-
(a) IMPRISONMENT/DETENTION ETC.
Certificate from the concerned jail authorities,
District Magistrates or the State Government in
r case of non-availability of such certificates co-
prisoner certificates from a sitting MP or MLA or
Ex-MP or ex-MLA specifying the jail period
(Annexure-l in the application form.)
(b) REMAINED UNDERGROUND:
(i) Documentary evidence by way of Court's/
Government orders proclaiming the applicant as
an offender, announcing an award on his head,
or for his arrest or ordering his detention.
(ii) Certificates from veteran freedom fighters who
had themselves undergone imprisonment for
five years or more if the official records are not
forthcoming due to their non-availability.
(c) INTERNMENT OR EXTERNMENT
(i) Order of internment or externment corroboratory
documentary evidence.
(ii) Certificates from prominent freedom fighters
who had themselves undergone imprisonment
for five years or more if the official records are
not available. (Annexure-II in the application.)
Note:-
The Certifier veteran freedom fighters in respect
of underground suffering, internment/
externment and the applicant should belong to
2025:HHC:30407-DB -7- REPORTABLE
the same administrative unit before the
reorganization of States and their area of
operation must be the same."
8. A close reading of Clause 9(c) (i) would go on
to show that in order to prove the claim, documents
.
which would be required are either an order of internment
or externment of any documentary evidence. It is not
disputed that the claim had been given in the form
of certificate by person who was not less than the
former Home Minister and the sitting Superintendent
of Police, apart from being an Advocate and an active
Member of the Praja Mandal Movement of Bilaspur State.
The certificate dated 19.08.1975, reads as under:-
"CERTIFICATE:
Certified that I know Shir Teg Singh son
of Shri Malagar resident of Nog Pargana Sadar
Tehsil and district Bilaspur. He was an active
member of the Praja Mandal movement Bilaspur
State and had participated in the Jatha that had
to be intercepted at the Bhagwani bridge on the
Sutlej river and sent out of the State on
22-10-1946.
Sd/-
(Sant Ram)
ADVOCATE
Former Home Minister
Cum Superintendent of Police
Bilaspur State.
Dt. 19-8-1975."
9. In our considered opinion, the said certificate
itself was sufficient to bring it within the parameters
of other corroboratory documentary evidence as per terms
of the Scheme itself. The order of rejection has noticed this
2025:HHC:30407-DB -8- REPORTABLE
fact, but rejected the claim only on the ground that
Certifier had not furnished any record/evidence of his own
duration of suffering in connection with Freedom
.
Movement and the State Government's adverse report
dated 26.08.1996 had not supported the case.
10. The wife of the deceased Freedom Fighter had
appended alongwith her writ petition not only the affidavit
of Teg Singh that he remained under externment since
1946 to 1948 and could only enter the State when the
same acceded to Indian Union on 12.10.1948, but
alongwith that she also submitted a Personal Knowledge
Certificate of Narottam Dutt Shashtri [Annexure PE], who
was lodged in the externment Jail in Bilaspur District for
the period of from 1946 to 1948 and certified that Teg
Singh resident of Village Nog, Post Office Banota, Tehsil
Sadar, District Bilaspur, was in externment from 1946 to
1948 for more than a period of six months as required.
11. Similar certificate from Ganga Ram [Annexure
PF] to the same extent of verifying the externment
period was also appended alongwith one Jai Ram's
certificate, who themselves were recipients of Central
Scheme and the details had also been mentioned.
Apparently, all these factors were never considered in
the right perspective while passing the impugned order
2025:HHC:30407-DB -9- REPORTABLE
dated 11.04.2007 by the Union of India in the form
of substantial corroboratory documents available on
record.
.
12. The Union of India had gone to reject the claim
for the reasons which are not sustainable inspite of
law which has time and again reminded them of their
obligations and their pronouncements for the faith of the
Freedom Fighters. However, on the ground a different
bureaucratic mindset is engrained so deep that it is hard
for them to shake-off and realise that the benefits they are
receiving while holding such offices, are only on account of
the fact that the Freedom Fighters are responsible for their
State of Affairs at this present point of time.
13. The learned Single Judge has carefully
scrutinized the details of the litigation and the fact that Teg
Ram was agitating for his grievances and applied way
back on 22.08.1975 after the issuance of the certificate
from the Home Minister on 19.08.1975. On two occasions
directions had been issued in his case to consider his
application firstly on 28.10.1996 and thereafter on
02.01.2006, which eventually led to rejection, vide order
dated 11.04.2007.
14. It is not disputed that Teg Ram died on
23.01.2008 after passing of the order and therefore his
2025:HHC:30407-DB - 10 - REPORTABLE
widow, as such, is trying to get the benefits, who herself
is stated to be in her 80's at the time when the writ
petition was allowed on 02.01.2017.
.
15. Learned Single Judge, therefore, has rightly
rejected the stand of the respondents that there was
delay and laches and has protected the interest, as such, of
the respondents by granting benefit only from 01.01.2012,
when the State got knowledge of filing of the writ petition,
while falling back on Clause 2(i) of the State Scheme
which also
r grants eligibility in the same format,
as such, as to the widow, if she was not re-married. It has
also been held by the learned Single Judge that
the widow cannot be expected to produce evidence at
this tangential stage to prove her case beyond all
reasonable doubts and it is a beneficial legislation while
granting the said relief.
16. The reliance has been placed by the Union of
India on Civil Appeal No.909 of 2022 [arising out of
SLP (C) No.9624 of 2020], titled as Union of India
Versus Krishna Modi & Anr., decided on 03.02.2022,
which would not take the Union of India a long way
since that was the case where person was about 12 years
of age when he claimed to be underground during the
Freedom Movement of 1942 and it was in these
2025:HHC:30407-DB - 11 - REPORTABLE
circumstances, it was held that in the absence of
detention order and merely on the basis of certificates
issued by certain Freedom Fighters, who were themselves
.
in jail during the period when they certified that the said
person remained underground, the benefit was not liable to
be granted. The claim had only been made in the year 1982
in the said case, whereas as noticed, the certificate in the
present case was issued on 19.08.1975 and immediately
an application was filed on 22.08.1975. The said judgment
would be of no assistance, as such, for Union of India.
17. Counsel for Union of India has objected to the
affidavits appended alongwith the writ petition by way
of secondary nature of evidence and, therefore, he has
placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in
Civil Appeal No.783 of 2007, titled as Union of India &
Anr. Versus Kaushalaya Devi, decided on 15.02.2007.
Reading of the judgment would go on to show that the
issue was only regarding grant of pension from which date
and not from the date of application and the appeal
has been allowed by restricting the claim from the date of
order of granting the pension.
18. In the present case, as noticed, the claim
has totally been rejected on untenable reasons inspite
of the fact that there was a certificate of a person who
2025:HHC:30407-DB - 12 - REPORTABLE
himself had participated in the said movement and
also holding a responsible post of Home Minister and
then also being a Superintendent of Police, in a small
.
State of Bilaspur. Therefore, we do not find any valid
reasons to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by
the learned Single Judge keeping in view the purpose of
Scheme, as already highlighted.
19. The objection of the State that they had
only applied in 2011 that would not help the State
keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court that
benefit had not been given from the date of application
or modified from the date of judgment, whereas the benefit
has been given from the date of knowledge and
the interest of State has also been protected.
20. Keeping in view the interim order dated
09.10.2017, the arrears of the monetary benefits under the
Swatantrata Sainani Samman Pension Scheme, 1980,
could not be disbursed to the writ petitioner w.e.f.
01.01.2012, thus the arrears be made good as per the
impugned judgment within two months from today. In case
the amount is not paid within the period of two months,
the same will carry penal interest at the rate of 8% per
annum on the arrears.
21. Accordingly, the both these appeals are
2025:HHC:30407-DB - 13 - REPORTABLE
dismissed.
22. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of.
.
(G.S. Sandhawalia)
Chief Justice
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
September 03, 2025
[Bhardwaj/Shivender]
r to
