Patherya, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed from the order dated January 25, 2016 and it is only for the reason of unexplained delay and laches either by the appellant/writ petitioner's husband and on the part of the appellant that the writ petition was dismissed and the stale claim could not be resurrected. The said reason in itself cannot be supported by us and the only reason we can give is that the appellant is a widow of a freedom fighter who struggled for Independence India. When the 1980 scheme was introduced, the appellant's husband filed an application and his application was rejected in 1984 by the Central Government. Subsequent thereto in 1985, a recommendation was made by the State of West Bengal relying on the criteria of the 1980 scheme. A writ petition was filed in 1994 and representation made. The said writ application of 1994 was to be considered by the Union of India and the Union of India did so and passed an order dated March 23, 1996. By the order dated March 27, 1996, the representation of the appellant's husband was rejected.
(2.) It is true that since 1996, the deceased husband of the appellant did not pursue his remedy and in 2006, he died but Paragraph No.6 of the 1980 Scheme was captioned "HOW TO APPLY" and the same is set out for relevant reference:- "Persons who consider themselves eligible for Samman Pension under the scheme should apply in duplicate on the prescribed application form. One form duly filled and supported by required documents as proof of claim of suffering should be sent to the Chief Secretary to the State Government / Union Territory Administration concerned. The second copy should be sent to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Freedom Fighters Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, First floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi-3 as an advance copy."
(3.) Therefore, the appellant was entitled to apply for 'Samman Pension' under the 1980 scheme. The scheme which is being considered by us is not an ordinary scheme, but postulated the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme and it is only in this scenario that the Court below ought to have considered and passed the order dated January 25, 2016 and in not doing so, as mentioned hereinabove, the order dated January 25, 2016 cannot be sustained and accordingly calls for interference and is set aside.;