Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1486 (AP)

Nallamala Murahari Rao v. Government of India

2001-11-20

S.B.SINHA, V.V.S.RAO

body2001
( 1 ) THE appellants claimed that they are freedom fighters and fought against Nizam Government during the movement in the year 1947-48. The Government of India formulated a Scheme known as Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 (FFP Scheme for brevity) to provide pension to freedom fighters under the said scheme. It appears the first appellant applied for the same on 25. 3. 1984 to the Government of India, the first respondent herein for sanction of freedom fighters pension. The Government of India vide order dated 13. 5. 1991 communicated to the first appellant that the Government of India decided to grant him freedom fighters pension from Central Revenues. The consequential communication from the Ministry of Home Affairs was also sent to Central Pension Accounting Office, New Delhi informing that the first appellant has been granted pension with effect from 25. 1. 1991. Though the details are not given in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, it is stated that all other appellants were also given pension from the date of sanction of the pension. The appellants accepted the pension in 1991 and have drawn the pension since then, in 1998 they filed a writ petition, being WP No. 16472 of 1998 dated 5. 10. 2001 praying for a declaration that the action of the respondents in not sanctioning pension from the date of scheme is illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to release pension from the date of the scheme. ( 2 ) THE writ petition was opposed by the first respondent inter alia contending that the petitioners have not furnished sufficient documents from official records to prove their claim that they went underground and suffered and that in the absence of necessary certificates and record, the appellants are not entitled for any pension under the scheme. However, applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. M. S. Chellaiah Thevar, CA No. 7762 of 1996, dated 30-4-1996, the appellants were given benefit of doubt and sanctioned freedom fighters pension from the date of sanction prospectively. Though recommendation made by the Committee, the same was not supported any documents and therefore it is not accepted. It is also averred that the appellants were sanctioned pension from the date of recommendation of the Committee as per the extant of Government policy following the judgment in Chellaiah Thevar s case. Though recommendation made by the Committee, the same was not supported any documents and therefore it is not accepted. It is also averred that the appellants were sanctioned pension from the date of recommendation of the Committee as per the extant of Government policy following the judgment in Chellaiah Thevar s case. ( 3 ) THE learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ganesh Chandra Dolai, (1997) 10 SCC 289 , and also a Division Bench of this Court in Deputy Secretary v. Kalineni Venkamma, Unreported judgment in WA No. 1974 of 1999, dated 21-12-1999, holding that the petitioners are entitled for pension only from the date of sanction/ recommendation for sanction. ( 4 ) SRI K. Vinay Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that there was no reason for the Government to come to a conclusion that there was no sufficient evidence and that when once the State Committee makes recommendation it is conclusive and the Central Government is bound to grant freedom fighters pension. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 2127 . We are afraid we cannot agree with the submission for reasons more than one. ( 5 ) FFP Scheme was introduced with certain sacred and noble objectives of financially helping the freedom fighters who have sacrificed the best part of their life for the Nation. It is intended to provide solace in the old age of the freedom fighters who might have sacrificed his entire property for the Nation and who may be in dire circumstances of distress and destitution. When the scheme was introduced in 1980 the same was not intended to be given to every person who claims to be freedom fighter. The efficacy or otherwise of such scheme would depend on implementing the same only in the case of claims of genuine credibility. If the benefit of the scheme goes to those persons who are not in fact entitled for pension, the very object and purpose of the scheme would be defeated. Therefore, as part of the scheme itself Committees were constituted and necessary verification procedures were incorporated therein. If a person claims to be freedom fighter he must have suffered incarceration in connection with freedom movement for not less than six months. Therefore, as part of the scheme itself Committees were constituted and necessary verification procedures were incorporated therein. If a person claims to be freedom fighter he must have suffered incarceration in connection with freedom movement for not less than six months. Other conditions were also indicated. These instances of imprisonment etc. , oridinarily can easily be proved by obtaining necessary documents. If doucmentary proof is not produced, it is not possible for the Committee or the competent authority to sanction pension. Further, there may be cases where the allegations of participation may be correct by reason of collateral historical recorded facts, which may not manifest in the shape of certifiacte in the name of the claimant. In such cases, by applying benefit of doubt, the Government of India sanctioned pensions. In the case cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants the situation is altogether different. The Supreme Court laid down that whatever the date on which the claimants made application, the benefit should be made available to them and the same cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. We may beneficially extract the following observations from Mukund Lal Bhandari case (supra): it is common knowledge that those who participated in the freedom struggle either at the national level or in the erstwhile Nizam State, are scattered all over the country and most of them may even be inhabiting the remotest parts of the rural areas. What is more, almost all of them must have now grown pretty old, if they are alive. Where the freedom fighters are not alive and their widows and the unmarried daughters have to prefer claims, the position may still be wrose with regard to their knowledge of the prescribed date. What is more, if the scheme has been introduced with the genuine desire to assist and honour those who had given the best part of their life for the country, it ill-behaves the Government to raise plea of limitation against such claims. In fact, the Government, if it is possible for them to do so, should find out the freedom fighters or their dependents and approach them with the pension instead of requiring them to make applications for the same. That would be the true spirit of working out such schemes. The scheme has rightly been renamed in 1985 as the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme to accord with its object. That would be the true spirit of working out such schemes. The scheme has rightly been renamed in 1985 as the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme to accord with its object. We, therefore, cannot countenance the plea of the Government that the claimants would only be entitled to the benefit of the scheme if they made applications before a particular date notwithstanding that in fact they had suferred the imprisonment and made the sacrifices and were thus otherwise qualified to receive the benefit. We are, therefore, of the view that whatever the date on which the claimants make the applications, the benefit should be made available to them. The date prescribed in any past or future notice inviting the claims, should be regarded more as a matter of administrative convenience than as a rigid time-limit. ( 6 ) THE case on hand, in our opinion, is squarely covered by Ganesh Chandra Dalai case (supra), wherein it was observed: we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We are of the view that the ratio in Duli Chand v. Union of India [ (1992) 2 SSC 28] is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In Dull Chand case this Court had by the order dated 16. 7. 1990 (Duli Chand v. Union of India, 1990 Supp SCC 762) directed the Government of India to pay pension to the petitioners therein w. e. f. 1. 8. 1980. It was specifically mentioned in the order that all the 41 petitioners had produced the relevant documents supporting their claim and keeping in view the facts of these case pension was directed to be given w. e. f. 1980. In this case, the Government of India has categorically stated that the respondents were given benefit of doubt and as such the pension can only be given from the date of the order. ( 7 ) THE Division Bench of this Court in Kalineni Venkamma s case (supra) was dealing with a similar case where it was illegal that the writ petitioners therein participated in the movement against Nizam and went underground. ( 7 ) THE Division Bench of this Court in Kalineni Venkamma s case (supra) was dealing with a similar case where it was illegal that the writ petitioners therein participated in the movement against Nizam and went underground. While recording a finding that except assertion to the effect that the freedom fighter went underground no material was available, the Division Bench observed as under: this is in consonance with the reasoning also that pension is being granted for the survival of the freedom fighter and also for the reason, that a doubt still lingers in the mind of the authority whether the appellant is a freedom fighter. It is only in exercise of discretion by the recommending authority, benefit of doubt was given to the freedom fighter for grant of pension who has not produced any documentary proof and such benefit of doubt given cannot confer any right on the application to the claim of pension. Consequently, substantial justice would be served if the pension is granted from the date of the order only. ( 8 ) IN the case on hand the learned Counsel for the appellants/petitioners have not produced any material in support of their allegation and therefore, the Government of India was justified in sanctioning pension from the date when it was sanctioned after giving benefit of doubt. Further the appellants have accepted the date from which they became elgible for FFP and after keeping quiet for seven years, they approached this Court. None of the submissions made by the appellants can be countenanced by this Court. ( 9 ) IN the result, for the aforesaid reasons, we do not see any reason to accept the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.