Baidyanath Mahto v. Anil Goswami & Ors.

7. CONT.CAS (C) 767/2014 Ram Khelwan Mahto 05.07.1981 Remained underground Shri Bhagirath Jha and Shri Yamuna Singh ISSUE:

7. The fundamental issue before this Court in the instant batch of petitions is with respect to the effective date of sanction from which pension under the SSS Pension Scheme is payable to the petitioners. To put it in proper prospective: Whether the pension is to be paid to the petitioners/freedom fighters in the present matter, payable from the date of filing of the application under the scheme or from the date of filing of WP (C) 3448/2010?

LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ADDRESSED:

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that they are freedom fighters who sacrificed their lives, peace and comfort during the Quit India Movement in 1942; that they remained underground for fear of being caught by the Police at the behest of British regime. Learned counsel for the petitioners has countenanced that although pension has been granted to them, the respondents vide the orders dated 02.08.2013 and 14.08.2013 sanctioned the pension from the date of filing of the Writ Petition whereas the order dated 13.03.2013 contemplated the pensions to be paid from the date of filing of applications under the scheme in 1981.

9. In support of the submissions made, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgement in the case of Mukund Lal CONT CAS (C) 760/2014; 762/2014;763/2014; 764/2014; 765/2014; 766/2014 & 767/2014 Bhandari v. Union of India & Ors.[4] and it was urged that the Supreme Court held that the pension should be paid to the applicant from the date of the application. Further, reliance has also been placed on the judgements in Satish Chandra Mishra v. Union of India & Ors.[5] as well as in Heera Singh v. Union of India[6], wherein in both cases the benefits under the scheme were granted from the date of application. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Revised Policy Guidelines in 2014, which have been filed by the respondents in their reply, is not a legal document and has neither been approved by the Union Cabinet nor been published in the Official Gazette.

10. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the pension of the applicants could not be regularised from the date of the application as there were several anomalies in the applications made. It is further stated by learned counsel for the respondents that evidence put forth by the applicants at the time of making their applications for pension under the SSS Scheme, was only in the nature of secondary evidence; and that no primary or cogent evidence was furnished on their behalf, therefore, making them ineligible as per the requirements prescribed in the scheme. It was urged that despite the fact that there was deficiency in the evidence provided, and the pension has been granted to them on the basis of benefit of doubt, and the pension can only be payable from the date of the order granting them their claim.

11. The respondents filed a reply affidavit, dated 20.03.2015, 4 AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2127 5 [164 (2009) DLT 172] 6 WP (C) 2934/2013 CONT CAS (C) 760/2014; 762/2014;763/2014; 764/2014; 765/2014; 766/2014 & 767/2014 wherein it has been stated that the original court records relating to GR Nos. 821/42 and 822/42, on the basis of which the petitioners herein had initially made their applications seeking pension claiming that they had faced underground suffering, had been destroyed per the Record Retention Schedule. Since the documents relied upon could not be verified, the extracts of Court Records furnished by the applicants could not be deemed as authentic. Therefore, on examination by the State Government, the cases of the petitioners seeking pension were considered to be doubtful due to the fact that the primary documents and evidence on the basis of which the applications were made were not verifiable.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent has also alluded to the Revised Policy Guidelines for Disbursement of Central Samman Pension Scheme dated 06.08.2014, which was promulgated by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide a notification bearing No.45/03/2014 - FF(P). It is submitted that as per the Revised Policy, in disputed cases where the applications were initially rejected by the competent authority, but subsequently came to be granted vide favourable court orders, the principles laid down in the case of Union of India v. Kaushalya Devi[7] are to be followed in determining the date from which pension is to be paid. In this regard, the policy states as follows:

(i) In case of Primary Evidence - Pension shall be paid from the date of Application.

(ii) In case of Secondary Evidence - Pension shall be paid from the date of Court Order.

(iii) In case of doubtful nature of evidence - Pension shall be paid from the date of Court Order.

CONT CAS (C) 760/2014; 762/2014;763/2014; 764/2014; 765/2014; 766/2014 & 767/2014

13. In support of the submissions made, learned counsel of the respondent placed reliance on the decision in the case of Government of India v. KV Swaminathan[8], wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that in a case where the claim is allowed on the basis of benefit of doubt, the pension shall be granted from the date of the order by which such claim is allowed, and not from the date of the application. Reliance is also placed on decision in the case of Union of India v. Kaushalya Devi, wherein it was held that since the claim was allowed on the basis of secondary evidence, that being the oral statement of some other detenue, and not on the basis of any jail certificate produced by the claimant, therefore, the pension should be granted from the date of the order and not from the date of the application.

14. Furthermore, reliance has also been placed on the order dated 27.09.2010, wherein the Supreme Court in the case of Mahender Singh v Union of India[9]. In addition to the abovementioned decisions of the Supreme Court, the decision of this court in the case of Shri Bhola Jha v. Union of lndia and Ors.10 has also been relied on where, in which in somewhat likewise fact scenario, it was opined that the pension would be payable from the date of filing of the writ petition and not from the date of the application.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

15. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties at the Bar. I

9 Civil Appeal No. 5215 of 2009 10 WP (C) No. 3453/2010 CONT CAS (C) 760/2014; 762/2014;763/2014; 764/2014; 765/2014; 766/2014 & 767/2014 have gone through the entire record of the case as also the case law cited at the Bar.

16. First things first, the direction dated 13.03.2024 by this Court was categorical to the effect that the pension would be granted from the date of making of the application, provided that the same is sanctioned or contemplated by the pension scheme. Otherwise the pension would be payable from the date of filing of the Writ Petition. The said aspect brings us to first appreciate the broad contours of the scheme, which provides as under:- “Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 FORMERLY KNOWN AS FREEDOM FIGHTERS PENSION SCHEME, 1972 INTRODUCTION During Twenty fifth anniversary (Silver Jubilee Year) of Independence a Central Scheme for the Grant of Pension to Freedom Fighters and their families from Central Revenues was introduced by the Government of India. The Scheme commenced from 15th August, 1972 and provided for the grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families; if they are no more alive, and to the families, of martyrs the minimum quantum of pension sanctioned to a freedom fighter be Rs. 200 p.m. and in case of families varied from Rs. 100 to Rs. 200 in accordance with the size and number of eligible dependents in the family. Till 31st July, 1980 the Freedom fighters pension was a admissible only to those who were in need of financial assistance on account of their meager annual gross income. Thus an annual income ceiling of Rs. 5000 was enforced for eligibility to pension. From 1-8-1980, the benefit of the pension Scheme has been extended to all freedom fighters as a token of SAMMAN to them.

2. ENHANCED RATE OF PENSION (Not relevant)

3. WHO ARE ELIGIBLE DEPENDENTS? For the purpose of grant of Samman pension, family includes (if the freedom fighters is not alive) mother, father, widower/widow if he/she has not since remarried, unmarried daughters. Not more than one eligible dependent can be granted pension and in the event of availability of more than one dependent the sequence of eligibility will be widow/widower, unmarried daughters, mother and father.

CONT CAS (C) 760/2014; 762/2014;763/2014; 764/2014; 765/2014; 766/2014 & 767/2014

4. WHO IS ELIGIBLE? For the purpose of grant of Samman pension under the scheme, a freedom fighter is:- (a) A person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the mainland jails before Independence. However, ex- INA personnel will be eligible for pension if the imprisonment/detention suffered by them was a outside India. (b) The minimum period of actual imprisonment for eligibility of pension has been reduced to three months, in case of women and SC, India freedom fighters from 1-8-1980.

EXPLANATION

1. Detention under the orders of the competent authority will be considered as imprisonment.

2. Period of normal remission upto one month will be treated as part of actual imprisonment.

4. Broken period of imprisonment will be totaled up for computing the qualifying period. (b). A person who remained underground for more than six months provided he was:

1. A proclaimed offender; or

2. One on whom an award for arrest/had was announced; or

3. One for whose detention order was issued but not served. India A person interned in his home or externed from his district provided the period of internment/externment was six months or more.

(d) A person whose property was confiscated or attached and sold due to participation in the freedom struggle (e) A person who became permanently incapacitated during firing lathi chare. (f) A person who lost his job (central or State Government) and thus means of livelihood for participation in national movement. A MARTYR is a person who died or who was killed in action or in detention or was awarded capital Punishment while Participation in a National Movement for emancipation of India. It will include an ex-INA or ex-Military person who died fighting the British.

5. WHAT ARE THE MOVEMENTS/MUTINIES CONNECTED WITH NATIONAL FREEDOM STRUGGLE (Not relevant)

6. HOW TO APPLY (Not relevant)

7. HOW TO RECEIVE PENSION (MODE OF PAYMENT) (Not relevant)

CONT CAS (C) 760/2014; 762/2014;763/2014; 764/2014; 765/2014; 766/2014 & 767/2014

8. DURATION (Not relevant)

17. Along with the SSS Scheme, the Central Government has also brought out the salient features (Annexure-5 in CONT. CAS(C) 760/2014), which reads as under:l. SALIENT FEATURES OF SWATANTRATA SAINIK SAMMAN PENSION SCHEME. 1980 During the Silver Jubilee year of Independence a Central Scheme for grant of pension to freedom fighters and their eligible dependents (Where freedom fighters have already expired) was introduced by Government of India with effect from 15.08.1972. In 1980, the Scheme was liberalized and renamed as "Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme,1980" (the Scheme) and made effective from 01.08.1980. Several provisions of the Original Scheme have been modified and clarified since then through different orders and circulars of the Govt. of India. Salient features of the basic provisions of the Scheme, as amended up to date, are as follows-

2. Who is eligible for Samman Pension All the persons who participated in the freedom movement in some way or the other are not eligible for Samman Pension. Only following category of freedom fighters are eligible for the Samman Pension under the Scheme subject to furnishing of the specified evidences:- 2.[1] Eligible dependents of martyrs:- A martyr is a person who died or who was killed in action or in detention or was awarded capital punishment due to participation in the freedom struggle of India. Relevant documents from official records and newspapers of the relevant time are considered as evidences in such cases. 2.[2] Imprisonment:- A person who had suffered minimum imprisonment of six months (3 months in case of women, SC/ST freedom fighters) on account of participation in freedom struggle subject to furnishing of the following evidences:- (a) Imprisonment/detention certificate from the concerned jail authority, District Magistrate or the State Govt. indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release, facts of the case and reasons for release. (b) In case records of the relevant period are not available, the secondary evidences in the form of 2 co-prisoner certificates (CPC) from freedom fighters who have proven jail suffering of minimum 1 year and who were with the applicant in the jail could be considered provided the State Government/Union Territory CONT CAS (C) 760/2014; 762/2014;763/2014; 764/2014; 765/2014; 766/2014 & 767/2014 Administration concerned, after due verification of the claim and its genuineness, certifies that documentary evidences from the official records in support of the claimed sufferings were not available. In case the certifier happens to be a sitting or Ex. M.P./ M.L.A., only one certificate in place of the two is required 2.[3] Underground:- A person who on account of his participation in freedom struggle remained underground for more than six months provided he was;

3. Procedure Persons who consider themselves eligible for Samman Pension under the Scheme and desire the Samman Pension, should apply in duplicate on the prescribed application form. The application, duly filled in and supported with required documents as proof of claim of suffering, should be sent to the Chief Secretary of the concerned State Government/Union Territory Administration. A copy of such application should be sent to the Deputy Secretary to the government of India FF Division, MHA, New Delhi as an advance copy. However, claims can be processed by the Central Govt only on receipt of verification & entitlement to pension report CONT CAS (C) 760/2014; 762/2014;763/2014; 764/2014; 765/2014; 766/2014 & 767/2014 from the State Govt./U. T. Administration concerned. In case the requirements of the Scheme are fulfilled, Samman pension is granted to the applicant.

4. Acceptability of Secondary Evidence Secondary evidences can be considered only if supported by a valid Non-Availability of Records Certificate (NARC). The provisions of the Scheme were clarified to the State Governments in several circulars of the Govt. of India, gist of which is available in the Appendix attached herewith. The instructions on NARC were reiterated by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide Circular No. 8/12/95-FF(P) dated 2.11.98, relevant extracts of which are reproduced as follows- "As per the scheme, claims of the applicants for samman pension are required to be supported by the duly verified official records of the relevant times. Only in case of non availability of such records, secondary evidences, as specified, in the scheme, can be made basis of such claims. However, due care and caution is required in such cases in view of several instances of bogus/forged claims which have come to the notice of the Central Government. It is of utmost importance that before recommending such cases, complete facts of the case in which the applicant claims involvement, are verified from all the agencies which could have been concerned with the matter. These may include the police station concerned, the District administration, the jurisdictional court, competent authority issuing detention order, the advisory board/appellate court, prison authorities, and intelligence agencies. Discrete enquiry should also be made to ascertain genuineness of the claims. The NARC should be issued only after the above verification. It is reiterated that the NARC should invariably be worded as follows "All concerned authorities of the State Government who could have relevant records in respect of the claim of the applicant, have been consulted and it is confirmed that the official records of the relevant time are not available"

18. A careful perusal of the scheme would show that it does not specifically lay down any stipulation with regard to the date from which the pension would be payable. In other words, it does not specifically lay down that the pension would be payable from the date of the application. The scheme provides an elaborate procedure for making claims as well as the evidentiary requirements that are to be CONT CAS (C) 760/2014; 762/2014;763/2014; 764/2014; 765/2014; 766/2014 & 767/2014 submitted for being considered eligible for the scheme. It would be expedient to note that the Central Government had considered the claims of the petitioners herein, on mere reference by the appropriate State Government authority and had issued detailed letters to each of the claimants/freedom fighters assigning reasons as to why their claims had been denied, and yet the claims were eventually approved subsequent to directions of this Court dated 13.03.2013, purportedly extending the benefit of doubt to the claimants. While denying the claim for pension under the SSS Pension Scheme, the concerned authority took into consideration the requisite procedure of filing a claim, as also the requirements necessary to be eligible under the scheme and addressed to the each of the petitioners. For now, we allude to such letter by the Central Government in CONT.CAS(C) 760/2014, wherein it observed as under:

(v) State Government has not given its specific recommendation for grant of Samman pension in his case. (Earlier recommendation dated 14.5.1998 cannot be treated as valid since GR could not be

6. In view of the above the claim Shri Baidya Nath Mehto does not meet the eligibility criteria and evidentiary requirements of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.

7. It is, therefore, regretted that it is not possible to accept the claim of Shri Baidya Nath Mehto for grant of Central Samman pension from Central Revenues. Hence, the same is, hereby, rejected.”11 Each individual petitioner was addressed a similar letter denying their claim for pension from the date of application, with the same observations inter alia delving into the authenticity of the evidence produced.

CONT CAS (C) 760/2014; 762/2014;763/2014; 764/2014; 765/2014; 766/2014 & 767/2014

19. In the said backdrop, let us consider entire gamut of the „SSS Scheme‟ which has come up for consideration in a catena of cases decided by the Apex Court as also by this Court. It is pertinent to mention that the earlier scheme i.e. FFPS, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari (supra), wherein the petitioners claimed that they had participated in the Arya Samaj Movement in the late 1930s in the erstwhile Nizam State of Hyderabad. It was observed that the aforesaid scheme had been modified by the Government of India by introducing the „SSS Scheme‟, thereby enhancing the pension amount. The grievance of the petitioners was that their claims had been rejected inter alia on the grounds that the same had not been submitted within the prescribed period of time. It was in the aforesaid backdrop that the following observations came to be passed: “4...... Coming now to the last contention advanced on behalf of the Government, viz., that the benefit of the scheme should be extended only from the date the claimant produces the required proof of his eligibility to the pension, we are of the view that this contention can be accepted only partially. There have been cases, as in the present case, where some of the claimants had made their applications but either without the necessary documentary proof or with insufficient proof. It is unreasonable to expect that the freedom fighters and their dependents would be readily in possession of the required documents. In the very nature of things, such documents have to be secured either from the jail records or from persons who have been named in the scheme to certify the eligibility. Thus, the claimants have to rely upon third parties. The records are also quite old. They are bound to take their own time to be available. It is, therefore, unrealistic to expect that the claimants would be in a position to produce documents within a fix time limit. What is necessary in matters of such claims is to ascertain the factum of the eligibility. The point of time when it is ascertained, is unimportant. The prescription of a rigid time- CONT CAS (C) 760/2014; 762/2014;763/2014; 764/2014; 765/2014; 766/2014 & 767/2014 limit for the proof of the entitlement in the very nature of things is demeaning to the object of the Scheme. We are, therefore, of the view that neither the date of the application nor the date on which the required proof is furnished should make any difference to the entitlement of the benefit under the Scheme. Hence, once the application is made, even if it is unaccompanied by the requisite eligibility data, the date on which it is made should be accepted as the date of the preferment of the claim whatever the date on which the proof of eligibility if furnished ” {BOLD PORTIONS EMPHASIZED}

20. Based on the aforesaid observations, the following directions were passed:

22. In a latter case of Kaushalya Devi (supra),13 the same question came up for consideration: “whether the freedom fighters‟ pension scheme should be granted to the respondent from the date of the application or the date of order granting pension”? It is pertinent to mention that it was a case where the claim was not based on an original jail certificate evidencing detention but oral evidence of others, which did not inspire confidence. Relying on the decision in the case of KV Swaminathan (supra), it was reiterated that where a claim is allowed on the basis of benefit of doubt, the pension should be granted not from the date of the application, but from the date of passing of the order. The decision in Mukund Lal Bhandari (supra) was distinguished to the effect that it laid down that “the pension cannot be granted from any date prior to the application but that does not mean that it cannot be granted from a date subsequent to the application”. In the case of Mahender Singh v. Union of India,14 the petitioner had filed an application for pension under the scheme on 07.09.1981. The State Government recommended that the pension should be granted w.e.f. 01.08.1980. However, his pension was not determined by the Central Government subsequent to which,

13 Date of decision 15.02.2007 14 Civil Appeal No. 5215 of 2009 decided on 27.09.2010 CONT CAS (C) 760/2014; 762/2014;763/2014; 764/2014; 765/2014; 766/2014 & 767/2014 representations were preferred, which went in vain and eventually he challenged the decision of the Central Government not granting him the pension. It was held by the Supreme Court that since the petitioner freedom fighter had failed to give relevant details as to the period of detention undergone by him and his failure to supply names of other freedom fighters who had gone underground, the recommendations of the State Government for grant of pension to the petitioner were not binding. It would be expedient to reproduce the relevant observations, which read as under:

23. At this juncture, we consider the case of Sh. Sukhai Thakur v. Union of India & Ors.15 decided by a Division Bench of this Court, 15 LPA No. 372/2012 decided on 02.11.2012 CONT CAS (C) 760/2014; 762/2014;763/2014; 764/2014; 765/2014; 766/2014 & 767/2014 in somewhat similar circumstances as those which have been espoused in the present petitions. In the aforesaid case, the appellant had claimed that he had participated in the Quit India Movement, 1942 along with his colleagues and he had been instrumental in dismantling the communication network of the British Government. He claimed that he remained underground and a Non-Bailable Warrant had been issued against him. Further, he was also declared a proclaimed offender resulting in not only attachment of his property but also harassment of his family members. The case of the appellant did not find favour with the learned Single Judge of this Court since the original documents of the Court record in respect of GR-834/1942 were not submitted. In the absence of primary evidence and the requisite NARC16 from the concerned State Government/Union Territory Administration, the claim was rejected. In the appeal, it was claimed that the relief had already been granted to two other freedom fighters, namely Mr. Anandi Mahto and Mr. Panak Lal Sahu, whose names were indicated in GR No. 834/1942, and therefore, there was no reason for insisting upon the primary documents. This Court observed as under:- “9. The counsel for the Central Government has produced the original file relating to Mr. Anandi Mahto before us and which has been scanned by us. We find the said file to be also containing the same photocopy i.e. the extract from the order sheet dated 07.12.1962 in OR No.834/1942 on which the appellant basis his claim. The notings in the said file record that the original OR No.834/1942 is on the file of Mr. Manohar Lai Yadav and on the basis thereof pension was sanctioned with effect from the year 1998, even though Mr. Anandi Mahto had also applied in the year

1981. Non Availability of Record Certificate CONT CAS (C) 760/2014; 762/2014;763/2014; 764/2014; 765/2014; 766/2014 & 767/2014

10. The counsel for the respondent has been unable to show as to why,: when on the basis of the same document and facts, pension was sanctioned to Mr. Anandi Mahto, it should not be sanctioned to the appellant.

11. We accordingly set aside the order dated 11.04.2012 of the learned Single Judge and allow W.P.(C) No.2022/2012 filed by the appellant by quashing the letter dated 14.12.2007 of the respondents No.l&2 of rejection of the claim for SSS Pension of the appellant. Though the appellant had claimed pension from the year 1981 and though pension on similar facts was sanctioned to Mr. Anandi Mahto with effect from 1998, but Owing to the delay, laches and acquiescence on the part of the appellant in preferring the writ petition only in the year 2012 inspite of rejection of his claim on 14.12.2007,we direct payment of pension to the appellant with effect from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 01.04.2012. We further direct that subject to the appellant complying with the formalities if any required to be complied with in this regard, the arrears of pension be released to the appellant within six weeks from today and future pension be also disbursed as per the Scheme. The respondents No.l&2 having rejected the claim of.the appellant inspite of the appellant being similarly placed as Mr. Anandi Mahto, we also impose costs of Rs.25,000/payable by the respondents No.1&2 to the appellant within six weeks from today.”

24. Suffice to state that in the case of Bhola Jha v. Union of India & Ors.17 and Biltu Roy & Anr. v. UOI & Ors.18, the authenticity of GR Case Nos. 822/1942 and 834/1942 was not in dispute and a bare reading of the same showed the details of the claimants/freedom fighters, on the basis of which pension had been allowed to be disbursed as per the scheme.

25. The aforesaid chronology of the decisions by the Apex Court as well as this Court clearly bring out that although no period for lodging a claim is provided, in cases where the claim is based on cogent primary evidence, the date of application shall be the decisive 17 WP (C) No. 3453/2010 decided on 16.01.2013 WP (C) No. 4344/21010 decided on 16.01.2013 CONT CAS (C) 760/2014; 762/2014;763/2014; 764/2014; 765/2014; 766/2014 & 767/2014 date from which pension would be payable. However, where “benefit of doubt” is accorded to a claimant in a case wherein unsatisfactory secondary evidence is brought forth, in such cases, taking a liberal view and keeping in mind the beneficial nature of the scheme, the date of filing of the Writ Petition or the date of passing of a favourable order, as the Court may provide, shall be the relevant date for the grant of pension.

26. In view of the foregoing discussion, in each of the instant contempt petitions before this Court, no primary record has been shown to have been destroyed. Even otherwise, claims put forth by the petitioners are not backed by fellow freedom fighters. The GR receipts upon which reliance is placed do not indicate any names and details of the freedom fighters either. Although, there are serious disputes with regard to the genuineness of the claims, yet each of the petitioners herein have been accorded benefit of doubt and been granted pension from the date of filing of the Writ Petition.

27. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the decision in the case of Union of India v. Krishna Modi & Anr.19 wherein the Supreme Court was dealing with an issue regarding grant of pension to a freedom fighter who claimed to have suffered eight months of confinement in the freedom movement in the year 1942 and it was observed as under:- “It is further contended that for being eligible, what was required was that a person should have remained underground for more than six months, provided he was a proclaimed offender; or one on

19 Civil Appeal No. 909 of 2022 dated 03.02.2022 CONT CAS (C) 760/2014; 762/2014;763/2014; 764/2014; 765/2014; 766/2014 & 767/2014 whom an award for arrest/head was announced; or one for whom detention order was issued but not served, which, according to the learned ASG, was not so in the case of the respondent no.1. He also submitted that in the absence of the respondent no. 1 having furnished the Non-availability of Record Certificate (NARC), the case of the respondent no. 1 could not have been considered merely on the basis of certificate issued by the freedom fighters who had undergone imprisonment for five years or more. 5 Learned counsel has submitted that the freedom fighters, who had allegedly issued the certificate, were themselves in custody during the period in question when the respondent no. 1 claims to have remained underground, and since the persons issuing the certificate were themselves in jail, they could not have certified that the respondent no.1 was underground during such period.”

28. Further, it was observed that the State Government had not made any recommendation but had merely forwarded the application of the respondent freedom fighter to the Central Government. Incidentally, in the instant matters too, the State Government has not carried out any independent inquiries to verify the genuineness of the claims submitted. The said course of action was not approved by the Supreme Court and it was observed as under: “We are conscious of the fact that those persons who had participated in the freedom struggle of our country, because of which we got independence, should certainly be honoured and if they are entitled to any benefits, which includes pension, they should definitely be provided such benefit. However, such benefits should be awarded only to those persons who are entitled for the same under any Scheme of the Government. This Court in the case of “Union of India Versus Avtar Singh” (2006) 6 SCC 493, has in paragraph no. 8 of the said judgment held as under: “8. …………The genuine freedom fighters deserve to be treated with reverence, respect and honour. But at the same time it cannot be lost sight of that people who had no role to play in the freedom struggle should not be permitted to benefit from the liberal approach required to be adopted in the case of the freedom fighters, most of whom in the normal course are septuagenarians and octogenarians.”

CONT CAS (C) 760/2014; 762/2014;763/2014; 764/2014; 765/2014; 766/2014 & 767/2014

29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, although this Court fully understands the sacrifices that have been made by each of the petitioners, but with a heavy heart, it is not legally possible to grant them any relief. At the cost of repetition, the „SSS Scheme‟ does not specifically provide for the grant of pension from the date of application by the beneficiary. Further, the case law discussed above bring to the fore that where secondary evidence is produced, benefit of doubt may be extended for the purpose of according sanction to grant pension, and the same is payable from the date of filing of the writ petition. The plea of the petitioners that the pension should be made payable from the date of moving of application is patently untenable in law. Hence, there are no legal grounds to hold that the respondents are guilty of committing contempt of the directions passed by this Court dated 13.03.2013.

30. Accordingly, the respective applications for revival of the Contempt Petitions are hereby dismissed and disposed of accordingly.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. JANUARY 31, 2024