LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Friday, July 20, 2012

Today the original applicant is not available and his wife is pursuing this litigation. By a Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995, after making references to various other earlier resolutions of the Government of Maharashtra relating to grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension, the criteria for grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension was specified under two different categories, namely, one under “Prisoners Freedom Fighter” and the other under the category of “Underground Freedom Fighter”. A perusal of the documents enclosed by the appellant’s husband along with his application disclose that the appellant’s husband made out a case for grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension under the category “Underground Freedom Fighter”. Applying the broad principles laid down in the decision of this Court in Gurdial Singh (supra), it will have to be held that there was nothing more for the State to examine to honour the claim of the appellant’s husband for grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension. The claim of the appellant’s husband cannot be held to be a fraudulent one or without any supporting material.-The respondent State is directed to grant Freedom Fighters’ Pension in favour of the appellant’s husband and since he is no more, grant the same with all arrears to the appellant by passing appropriate orders expeditiously preferably within four weeks from the date of communication of copy of this order. We hope and trust that the State Government will not indulge in any further delay in the matter of grant of pension so as to enable the appellant to avail the benefits at least during her life time. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions to the respondent State. No costs.



                                                                  Reportable


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.    5344  OF 2012
                        (@ SLP (C) NO. 8899 OF 2010)



 Kamalbai Sinkar                        ….Appellant

                                   VERSUS
State of Maharashtra & Ors.                     .…Respondents


                               J U D G M E N T



Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1.    Leave granted.

2.    This appeal arises out of the order passed by the High  Court  in  the
Writ Petition in which the claim of the appellant’s  husband  for  grant  of
Freedom  Fighters’  Pension  came  to  be  rejected.   Today  the   original
applicant is not available and his wife is pursuing this litigation.   By  a
Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995, after making references  to  various
other earlier resolutions of  the  Government  of  Maharashtra  relating  to
grant of Freedom Fighters’  Pension,  the  criteria  for  grant  of  Freedom
Fighters’ Pension was specified under two different categories, namely,  one
under “Prisoners Freedom Fighter”  and  the  other  under  the  category  of
“Underground Freedom Fighter”.  The claim of  the  appellant’s  husband  was
under the second category, namely, “Underground Freedom Fighter”.

3.    For grant of pension under  the  said  category  following  requisites
were stipulated:

            “ E) Underground Freedom Fighter:-


            Those freedom fighters who were under ground and doing a work in
      a movement of Quit India 1942-44 and Hydrabad Mukti  Sangram  1947-48.
      They submit the following necessary certificates:


           1)Required to quit house and stay outside.


           2)Required  to  leave  education  or  removed  from  Educational
           Institutions.


           3) Was so beaten by the police that     caused disability.


      2)    The Certificates of two Freedom Fighters who were convicted  for
      minimum two years or who were  declared  absconding  or  who  remained
      absconded for at least two years and along with such certificates, the
      Proclamation of conviction or absconding or  supporting  affidavit  of
      person issuing such certificate alongwith the orders of Government.


      4) The certified copy, if any, Government document  of  that  time  is
      available regarding the underground.


      5)    If any information about the name published in  newspapers,  the
      original newspaper.


      6) At the time of remark, District Gaurao Committee shall submit their
      opinion.”



4.    The said Resolution  was  issued  with  the  consent  of  the  Finance
Department  bearing  reference  No.   C.R-1183/94/VY-4   dated   10.11.1994.
Pursuant to the  said  resolution  dated  04.07.1995,  the  husband  of  the
appellant forwarded his application dated 05.08.1995 through  the  Collector
of Amravati.  Along with the said  application,  he  also  enclosed  certain
Annexures (viz) a certificate of renowned freedom fighter  dated  24.04.1984
by name Shankar Pandurangji Choudhari, a certificate issued by Mr.  Maganlal
Bagdi, Ex-MP, Hoshangabad along with his own certificate, a  certificate  of
Patwari Kasba, Warud Division, Taluk Warud dated 29.09.1981,  a  certificate
dated 08.06.1981 of freedom fighter S.P.Choudhary of Warud  Taluk,  Amravati
District, a certificate  issued  by  the  office  of  Naib  Tehsildar,  M.K.
Puranik dated 05.08.1961 in favour of Shankar Pandurang Choudhary about  the
imprisonments suffered by him and a  medical  certificate  dated  15.08.1981
issued  by  Dr.  S.G.  Choudhari  in  favour  of  the  applicant  about  his
participation in Satyagraha Morcha on 13.08.1942, the injuries  suffered  by
him in the Lathi Charge and the treatment given to  him  between  13.08.1942
to 15.08.1942.

5.    Based on an earlier order passed by  the  Nagpur  Bench  of  the  High
Court in Writ Petition No.424 of 2007, the  Collector  of  Amravati  in  his
letter dated 29.10.2009 informed the appellant that her husband’s claim  for
grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension was submitted  to  the  Government  along
with recommendation of the Gaurav Samiti dated  20.12.1996.   The  appellant
was advised to contact the Government.  However, in the order of  the  State
Government dated 22.01.2008 communicated to the Collector  of  Amravati,  it
was  stated  that  there  was  no  concrete  evidence  in   proof   of   the
participation of the freedom fight movement by the husband of the  appellant
and his claim  for  grant  of  Freedom  Fighters’  Pension  was,  therefore,
rejected.  The Collector  was  directed  to  communicate  the  same  to  the
appellant.

6.    Having perused the above materials on record, at the very  outset,  we
wish to refer to the observations made by this Court in regard to the  grant
of Freedom Fighter’s Pension in the decision reported in  Gurdial  Singh  v.
Union of India & Ors. [2001 (8) SCC 8].  In paragraph  7  of  the  judgment,
this Court has highlighted the  manner  in  which  such  claims  are  to  be
considered for grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension.  It  will  be  worthwhile
to make a reference to the said passage  before  expressing  our  conclusion
with regard to the claim of the appellant’s husband in  the  case  on  hand.
Paragraph 7 reads as under:

            “7.The standard of proof required in  such  cases  is  not  such
          standard which is required  in  a  criminal  case  or  in  a  case
          adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of the parties.  As
          the object of  the  Scheme  is  to  honour  and  to  mitigate  the
          sufferings of those who had given their all  for  the  country,  a
          liberal and not a technical approach is required  to  be  followed
          while determining the merits of  the  case  of  a  person  seeking
          pension under the Scheme.  It should not  be  forgotten  that  the
          persons intended to be covered by the Scheme had suffered for  the
          country about half-a-century back  and  had  not  expected  to  be
          rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them.  Once the  country
          has decided to  honour  such  freedom  fighters,  the  bureaucrats
          entrusted with the job of examining  the  cases  of  such  freedom
          fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose  and  object  of
          the Scheme.  The case  of  the  claimants  under  this  Scheme  is
          required to be determined on the basis of  the  probabilities  and
          not on the touchstone of the test of  “beyond  reasonable  doubt”.
          Once on the basis of the evidence  it  is  probabilised  that  the
          claimant had suffered imprisonment for the cause  of  the  country
          and during the freedom struggle, a presumption is required  to  be
          drawn in his  favour  unless  the  same  is  rebutted  by  cogent,
          reasonable and reliable evidence.”

                                                            [emphasis added]




7.    Keeping the above broad principles in mind, when we analyse the  claim
of the appellant’s husband, we find that the appellant’s husband  had  filed
along with his application dated 05.08.1995, a host of documents in  support
of his claim.  They were shown as  Annexures  to  his  application  and  the
details of which have been referred to by us in the  earlier  part  of  this
order.  In fact after the order of the Nagpur Bench passed in WP  No.424  of
2007, the Government in its communication dated 23.11.2007 addressed to  the
Collector of Amravati stated that the claim of the appellant’s  husband  was
not  traceable  and,  therefore,  all  related  documents  were  once  again
required  to  be  collected  and  submitted  to  the  Government   including
recommendations of Gaurav  Samiti  as  well  as  the  Collector’s  comments.
Apparently, pursuant to the said communication, the Collector in his  letter
dated 29.10.2009 informed the appellant  that  the  case  submitted  by  her
husband for getting pension as Underground Freedom Fighter was submitted  to
the Government along with office letter  bearing  No.KL/SS/PP/KV/3216  dated
20.12.1996 and the recommendations of Gaurav Samiti.

8.    In the said circumstances, we only state that the appellant’s  husband
made a genuine effort to collect all those credentials  in  his  support  as
required under the Resolution of the State Government dated 04.07.1995,  and
forwarded them to the State Government  along  with  his  application  dated
05.08.1995.   When  the  Collector,  Amrawati  forwarded  his  letter  dated
20.12.1996   and   reiterated   his   recommendation   in   his   subsequent
communications dated 14.10.2007 and 30.11.2007 there was no reason  for  the
State Government to simply reject  the  application  without  assigning  any
reason.  A perusal of the documents  enclosed  by  the  appellant’s  husband
along with his application disclose that the appellant’s husband made out  a
case for grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension under the category  “Underground
Freedom Fighter”.  Applying the broad principles laid down in  the  decision
of this Court in Gurdial Singh (supra), it will have to be held  that  there
was nothing more for the State  to  examine  to  honour  the  claim  of  the
appellant’s husband for grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension.   The  claim  of
the appellant’s husband cannot be held to be a  fraudulent  one  or  without
any supporting material.

9.    In our considered view, the High Court  ought  to  have  examined  the
grievance of the appellant before confirming the order of rejection  of  the
respondent State.  In the circumstances, the appeal deserves to be  allowed.
 The impugned orders are set aside. The  respondent  State  is  directed  to
grant Freedom Fighters’ Pension in favour of  the  appellant’s  husband  and
since he is no more, grant the same with all arrears  to  the  appellant  by
passing appropriate orders expeditiously preferably within four  weeks  from
the date of communication of copy of this order.  We  hope  and  trust  that
the State Government will not indulge in any further delay in the matter  of
grant of pension so as to enable the appellant  to  avail  the  benefits  at
least during her life time.   The  appeal  stands  allowed  with  the  above
directions to the respondent State.  No costs.








                                                      …..……….…………………………...J.
                                                               [T.S. Thakur]




                                           ...................………………………………J.
                              [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]


New Delhi;
July 20, 2012

-----------------------
9