MUKUND LAL BHANDARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by some freedom fighters and dependants of other freedom fighters claiming pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972. The Scheme was introduced by the Government of India on the occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Independence. It commenced on 15th August, 1972 and provided for the grant of pension to freedom fighters and if they were not alive to their families and also to the families of the martyrs. The minimum pension sanctioned to the freedom fighters was Rs. 200 per month and for their families, it varied from Rs. 100 to Rs. 200 in accordance with the size and the number of eligible dependants in the family. Till 31st July, 1980 the pension was admissible only to those whose gross annual income did not exceed Rs. 5000/-. From 1st August 1980, the benefit of the Scheme was extended to all freedom fighters irrespective of their income and as a token of honour (Sanman) to them. From that date, the maximum quantum of pension was also increased from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/-for freedom fighters and the minimum was enhanced from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200/- to the widows of the late freedom fighters with addition of Rs. 50/- per month for each unmarried daughter with a maximum limit of Rs. 300/- per month. The eligibility to get the Sanman pension, as it came to be called from 1st August, 1980, depended upon the freedom fighter having suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months. However, if the freedom fighter was a woman or belonged to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, the minimum period of actual imprisonment was reduced to three months. While explaining the meaning of the actual imprisonment the Scheme states; (a) the detention under the orders of the competent authority will be considered as imprisonment; (b) the period of normal remission up to one month would be treated as part of the actual imprisonment; (c) in case the trial ended in conviction, the undertrial period would be counted towards actual imprisonment suffered; (d) the broken period of imprisonment would be totalled up for computing the qualifying period; (e) the person remaining underground for more than six months, provided he was a proclaimed offender or one for whom an award for arrest or for his head was announced or one for whose detention order was issued but not served and (f) the person Interned in his home or externed from his district for six months or more, a person whose property was confiscated or attached or sold due to participation in the freedom struggle, a person who became permanently incapacitated on account of violence inflicted on him during such struggle, a person who lost his Govt. job Central or State and thus the means of livelihood for participation in such struggle, were also made eligible for the pension.

(2.) In Writ Petition No. 1190 of 1989 Duli Chand v. Union of India where the claim for pension was made by the petitioners, the Union of India did not file a counter. On the other hand, a statement was made on their behalf that on documents being produced in support of the claim, there would be no objection to granting the pension. It does not further appear that any contention was raised on behalf of the Government that the pension should not be made payable with retrospective effect. The facts, on the other hand, reveal that one of the petitioners in that writ petition was granted pension by the Government with effect from 1st August, 1980 during the pendency of the petition. It is on these facts, that this Court by its order of 16th July, 1990 made in that petition, directed that 41 of the petitioners should be granted pension with effect from 1st August, 1980 although they had made their applications beyond the date which was prescribed for making application.

(3.) Coming now to the present petition, the petitioners/ the late freedom fighters are persons who had participated in the Arya Samaj Movement in the late 1930s in the erstwhile Nizam State of Hyderabad. In view of the amendment made to the Scheme by the Government Circular/letter dated 30th September, 1985, the petitioners would undisputedly be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme provided, of course, they produced the relevant material in support of their claim. This is not disputed on behalf of the Union of India. However, three contentions have been raised. Firstly, the petitioners have not produced the required proof in support of their claim that they had in fact participated in the movement and were sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more. Secondly, they had filed their applications before the Government after the date prescribed for filing the application. And thirdly, in any case, if it is held that they satisfied the qualifying conditions under the Scheme, they would be entitled to the pension only from the date they produced the required documentary proof in, support of their claim and not from any earlier date.