The Supreme Court on 22nd February,2021 comprising of a bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy observed that the pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme can be sanctioned as per the proof required under the scheme and in no other manner.(Union of India vs. A. Alagam Perumal Kone)
The bench while setting aside the Madras High Court direction to grant Freedom Fighter's Pension to A. Alagam Perumal Kone under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme observed when the claim is under a particular pension 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.
Facts of the case
Kone had filed application for grant of pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme on 10.04.1997 which was rejected by the authority in the year 2004. Thereafter, on 29.08.2017, he again sent an application for grant of pension from 2011 under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, stating that he was imprisoned for more than six months from 05.01.1944 to 05.07.1944 during Quit India Movement. While this application was pending, he also moved the Madras High Court.
The High Court, by recording a finding that the certificate issued by an approved certifier is sufficient for grant of pension, disposed of the petition by directing the Centre to grant pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme and to pass suitable orders. Aggrieved with this, the Centre approached the Apex Court.
Contention of the parties
The appellant stated though specific grounds were raised before the Division Bench, inter alia, stating that no notice was issued in the writ petition; the application was not supported by required documents; and non-disclosure of the rejection of the first application for grant of pension.
It was contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has disposed of the petition without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity of filing counter affidavit to rebut the allegations, made in the writ petition. It is submitted that while exercising powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has committed error in issuing positive directions for grant of pension.
On the other hand, Mr. Divyanshu Srivastav, appearing for the 1st Respondent while refuting the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that though the respondent has participated in the freedom struggle and suffered losses apart from his imprisonment during the period of Quit India Movement, he is unduly deprived of the pension, which he is entitled to, as per the scheme prepared.
Court's Observation and judgment
The bench observed “As regards the sufficiency of proof, the scheme itself mentions the documents which are required to be produced along with the application. 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 the exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court should not have issued any directions for grant of pension."
The bench noted, “In the instant case, the appellant stands on a better footing, for the reason that although the application made by the respondent 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. We have also perused the order passed by the Division Bench. Even the Division Bench of High Court has not considered various grounds raised by the appellant while confirming the order of the learned Single Judge.”
The court concluded, “It may be true that the 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, he 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. Whether a particular applicant is entitled to a pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme of 1980, is a matter which is required to be considered having regard to facts and documentary evidence produced, therefore the appeal is allowed.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
