Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 345 (PAT)

Union Of India v. Ram Bahadur Singh

2002-03-14

NAGENDRA RAI, T.P.SINGH

body2002
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appeal is barred by limitation. After perusal of the grounds mentioned in the limitation petition and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that sufficient grounds have been made for condonation of delay. The delay in filing the appeal is, accordingly, condoned. 3. The matter in the appeal lies in narrow compass. Whether the respondent is entitled to freedom fighter samman pension from the date of application, i.e., from the year of 1982 or from the date of the order, i.e., from 20th April, 1993. The appellant-authorities granted pension to the appellant from the date of the order. The respondent-petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 1687 of 1997 which was heard by the learned Single Judge on 16.3.1998. No opportunity to file counter affidavit was given to the appellants. The learned Single Judge directed the appellant-authorities to grant the freedom fighter pension to the respondent from the date of application, i.e., with effect from 2.2.1982 and not from the date of the order. Thereafter a review application was filed by the appellants before the learned Single Judge on the ground that the respondent was granted freedom fighter pension after giving benefit of doubt and not after giving a clear finding that he was a freedom fighter and, as such, he is entitled to the benefit under the scheme from the date of the order and not from the date of filing of the application. The said review application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 4. The learnec Single Judge allowed the claim of the respondent relying upon the decision rendered in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari V/s. The Union of India, reported in A.I.R. 1993 SC 2127. The said judgment was considered by the Supreme Court in several cases and it has been laid down in the said cases that the benefit under the scheme will be given from the date of the application where the finding is given that the concerned person is a real freedom fighter and the law laid down in that case has no application where the freedom fighter pension is given after giving benefit of doubt. In this connection, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of India V/s. K.V. Swaminathan reported in (1997) 10 SCC 190 wherein it was held by the Apex Court that in a case where the benefit under the scheme is given on the basis of doubt the claimant is entitle to have freedom fighter pension only from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. 5. The present case has to be considered in the light of the said judgment of the Apex Court. As stated above that the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ application on the first date of admission itself and as such, the appellant could not produce the relevant document. Now the appellant have filed supplementary affidavit which shows that the benefit under the scheme was granted to the respondent by giving benefit of doubt and in this connection noting given by the concerned officer was as follows : "In view of above it is for orders whether we may grant pension prospectively by giving benefit of doubt," 6. The final authority has agreed to the aforesaid proposal. Thus the material on record shows that the respondent was granted freedom fighter pension by giving benefit of doubt and, as such, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Government of India V/s. K.V. Swaminathan (supra) is applicable in this case and the authorities have rightly granted him freedom fighter pension from the date of the order and not from the date of application. The learned Single Judge, in our view, was not justified in issuing the direction for payment of freedom fighter pension from the date of the application. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.3.1998 is set aside.