Delhi High Court granted a 96-year-old freedom fighter's plea for the grant of the 'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension' and ordered the respondents to provide his pending pension which had been pending since 1980.
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, a 96-year-old freedom fighter, sought the grant of 'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension' and approached the Court seeking a writ petition to direct the respondents to grant the pension from the date of application (1982) or as per recommendation (1980), along with 18% interest and costs.
The petitioner was involved in the Quit India Movement and was declared a proclaimed offender by the British colonial authorities due to his participation in the freedom struggle.
The petitioner's application for the pension scheme was made in 1982, and it was duly recommended by the State Advisory Committee, Bihar. The Government of Bihar sent the original documents, including the petitioner's application and relevant Court records, to the Central Government. However, the Central Government claimed to have lost these documents, causing significant delays.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
- The petitioner contended that he had applied for the pension on March 29, 1982, as per the government's announced scheme. He submitted the application in the prescribed format, along with supporting documents that demonstrated his involvement in freedom movement activities.
- The petitioner asserted that the Central Government lost the original documents related to his case, including the application form and the Court records. This loss was a significant hurdle in the processing of his pension application.
Contentions of the Respondents:
- The respondents maintained that the petitioner would only be entitled to the pension from the date he produced the necessary documents and established his eligibility. They argued that the entitlement could not be backdated to a date before this verification occurred.
- The respondents argued that they needed specific documents to verify the petitioner's eligibility, such as primary evidence of imprisonment, secondary evidence from co-prisoners, Court records, and more.
Observations of the Court:
The Court expressed its concern by pointing out that the case "reflects the complete sad state of affairs" because "a 96-year-old freedom fighter has been made to run from pillar to post to get his rightful pension."
The Court noted that the pedantic approach adopted by the respondents while dealing with the case should not be expected in dealing with such cases of freedom fighters.
The High Court relied on the judgment in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India[1] which deals with the eligibility of late freedom fighters for the "Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension." The Supreme Court in this case had established that freedom fighters were entitled to the pension, provided they could produce relevant supporting material. It rejected rigid time limits on pension claims and emphasised a compassionate approach, recognising the difficulty faced by elderly freedom fighters across the country. The Court ruled that the entitlement date for the pension should be the date of claim submission, even if eligibility proof was provided later. The judgment underlines the importance of honouring the sacrifices of late freedom fighters, prioritising the spirit of the scheme over bureaucratic technicalities, and facilitating their rightful entitlement to the pension.
The Decision of the Court:
The High Court directed the respondents to grant the petitioner's 'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension' within 12 weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court also ordered the payment of interest at 6% per annum from 1st August 1980 until the date of the pension payment. Furthermore, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000 on the respondents for its ‘lackadaisical approach’ to the matter.
Case Title: Uttam Lal Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case No.: W.P.(C) 7327/2022
Advocates for the Petitioner: I. C. Mishra and Anwar Ali Khan
Advocates for the Respondent: Anurag Ahluwalia, Rohan Gupta, Azmat H. Amanullah and Nitya Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
[1] 1993 Latest Caselaw 290 SC
Picture Source :
