Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 416 (PAT)

Shri Krishna Singh v. Union Of India

2000-03-14

S.N.JHA

body2000
Judgment 1. The dispute in this writ petition relates to the effective date of the grant of freedom fighters samman pension under 1980 scheme. The petitioner has already been granted pension but from the date of the order, according to him, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari V/s. Union of India, AIR 1993 Supreme Court, 2127, such grant is to be made from the date of application, in the instant case 1980. 2. The decision in Mukund Lal Bhandaris case was distinguished by the Supreme Court in Union of India V/s. M.R. Chelliah Thevar (Civil Appeal No. 7762 of 1996 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 25053 of 1995) and it would be useful to quote the following observations in the letter as under : "The distinction, however, is that in the case relied on by the Union of India the respondents were granted the benefit under the policy not because it was a clear case of the respondents being freedom fighters but because benefit of doubt was given and hence the pension was restricted from the date of the order and not the date of application. In the two cases relied on by the respondent there was no question of the benefit having been founded on a finding of fact which did not clearly establish that the petitioners were freedom fighters but on the liberal ground of giving them the benefit of doubt and restricting it from the date of order. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is a distinction between the decision relied on by the learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the Union of India and two decisions relied on by the respondent. In the instant case, since the benefit of doubt was given and the status of freedom fighter recognised on that basis, the case would be covered by the first mentioned decision dated 24th April, 95 (Union of India V/s. Chandra Dolai & Ors )" 3. Counsel for the petitioner relied or a Bench order of this Court in Union of lndia V/s. Jagdish Chaudhary (Civi Review No. 120 of 1995). l have gone through the said order. Far from lending any support to the petitioners contention it rather goes against him. The Bench disposed of the case following the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.R. Chelliah Thevars case. 4. l have gone through the said order. Far from lending any support to the petitioners contention it rather goes against him. The Bench disposed of the case following the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.R. Chelliah Thevars case. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been given benefit of doubt. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in said case, the pension is to be paid from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. That being so, I find no reason to make any interference with the effective date of the grant. 5. As the law on the point is now well settled but despite the same not only the application has been filed but the case has been argued with full vehemence, it is a fit case in which the petitioner should be saddled with cost. In the circumstance, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/-, which amount will be deducted from the petitiners pension.