Himachal Pradesh High Court: The present set of appeals were preferred against an order passed by a Single Judge wherein he had directed the respondents to pay pension to the widow of a freedom fighter under the Swatantrata Sainik Pension Scheme, 1980 (‘1980 Scheme’) which the respondents had rejected on the ground of lack of evidence to show that the freedom fighter had suffered externment. The Division Bench of G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ*., and Ranjan Sharma, J., observing that the pension schemes for freedom fighters were beneficial legislations, directed the arrears to be paid to the widow.
Background:
A freedom fighter had claimed pension on 22-08-1975 upon receiving the certificate from the Home Minister on 19-08-1975. Directions were issued to consider his application firstly on 28-10-1996 and thereafter on 02-01-2006, which eventually led to its rejection, vide order dated 11-04-2007 (‘rejection order’). The rejection order was passed on the ground that no acceptable evidence, duly verified by the State Government, was submitted in support of the claimed suffering of externment. Further, a valid Non-availability of Records Certificate (NARC) from the State Government was also not furnished. It was also stated by the State Government’s report that there was no indication of the participation of the husband in the Praja Mandal Movement.
The freedom fighter died on 23-01-2008, and afterwards, his widow challenged the order and prayed for the payment of arrears of pension along with an interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of her application and also asked the State to decide her application within a period of three months.
On 02-01-2017, the Single Judge, while observing that the widow could not be expected to produce evidence at this tangential stage to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubts, directed that financial assistance be granted under the updated Scheme, i.e., Scheme for the Grant of Financial Assistance by the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the Freedom Fighters of Himachal Pradesh. Accordingly, directions were issued to grant pension both under the Central Scheme and the State Scheme, but the State and the Union of India continued to litigate after objecting to the directions issued by the Single Judge.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court referred to Gurdial Singh v. Union of India, (2001) 8 SCC 8, wherein it was observed that a liberal and not a technical approach was 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 was probabilised that a presumption was required to be drawn in his favour unless the same was rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence.
The Court noted that as per the Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme, 1972, which was modified in 1980 as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, the eligible dependents were the widower or widow, if he or she had not re-married, apart from the mother, father and un-married daughters and that the claims must be proved as per Clause 9(c) of the 1980 Scheme. In the present case, the claim was in the form of a certificate by a person who was 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 Court opined that the said certificate itself was sufficient to bring it within the parameters of other corroboratory documentary evidence as per the terms of the Scheme and noted that the claim was rejected only on the ground that the Certifier had not furnished any record 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.
The Court further noted that the widow had annexed an affidavit of her husband that he had remained under externment since 1946 to 1948 and could only enter the State when the same was acceded to Indian Union on 12-10-1948. She had also submitted a Personal Knowledge Certificate of another person, lodged in the externment Jail in Bilaspur District from 1946 to 1948, who had stated that her husband was in externment from 1946 to 1948 for more than a period of six months as required. The Court also took note of similar certificates provided by two other people who were themselves recipients of the Central Scheme.
The Court opined that the Union of India had rejected the pension claim over unsustainable reasons despite being reminded time and again, by law, of their obligations and their pronouncements for the faith of the freedom fighters. “A different bureaucratic mindset was engrained so deep that it was hard for them to shake-off and realise that the benefits they were receiving while holding such offices, were only because the freedom fighters were responsible for their status at the present point of time”.
The respondents alleged that there was delay and laches that had protected the respondents’ interest by granting benefit only from 01-01-2012, i.e., when the State got knowledge of filing of the writ petition. The Single Judge’s rejection of this stand of the respondents was approved by the Court.
Consequently, the Court, while dismissing the appeals, ordered that the arrears of monetary benefits under the 1980 Scheme, which were not disbursed because of the interim order dated 09-10-2017, be paid to the widow as per the impugned judgment within two months, failing which a penal interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum would be levied on the arrears.
[Union of India v. Mahanti Devi, 2025 SCC OnLine HP 4672, decided on 03-09-2025]
*Judgement authored by: Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants: Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India [Senior Advocate] with Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondents: Vandana Kuthiala and Devi Singh, Advocates, for Respondent 1 in LPA No.102 of 2017 and LPA No.96 of 2017.
Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for Respondent 2-State in LPA No.102 of 2017.
Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India [Senior Advocate] with Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for Respondent 2-UOI in LPA No.96 of 2017.
