Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 999 (RAJ)

Sant Kumar v. U. O. I.

2006-03-28

PREM SHANKAR ASOPA

body2006
Judgment P.S. Asopa, J.-By this writ petition the petitioner Swatantrata Sainani Sant Kumar seeking appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents for making payment of enhanced pension as in case of Shri Lalaram and arrears of pension from 01.01.1988 to 16.07.1997. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that on 01.01.1988 the petitioner applied for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 but when the pension was not granted, he filed the writ petition which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 68/1996 and the same was disposed of with the direction to decide his pending representation as early as possible but not later than six months. On the said representation, the petitioner was granted a pension w.e.f. 17.07.1997 at the rate of Rs. 3,000/-, per month. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in similarly situated circumstances one Shri Lalaram applied for freedom fighter pension on 15.02.1988 and he has been granted pension vide order dated 13.06.1990 at the rate of Rs. 500/-per month from 15.02.1988 to 111.1988 and subsequently at the rate of Rs. 750/-per month w.e.f. 111.1988. The same has been subsequently revised also but in case of the petitioner the pension has been granted from the date of the order i.e., 17.07.1997. In support of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner has placed on record the affidavit of Lalaram, pension payment order dated 13.01.1990 and direction issued by the Central Government to the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur alongwith the additional affidavit dated 30.11.2005 and the same have been marked as Annexure-2, 3 and 4. 4. In reply filed by the Union of India, it has been submitted that the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension, 1980 do not provide specifically whether the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension is payable from the date of application or from the date of filing of the writ petition or from the date of Judgment of the writ petition. The competent authority has discretion to grant Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension either from the date of application or from the date of order looking to the facts andcircumstances of each case and this Court while exercising the judicial review, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion exercised by the competent authority unless the same is arbitrary or mala fide. As regards the case of Lalaram, it has been mentioned that his record is not available/traceable. As regards the case of Lalaram, it has been mentioned that his record is not available/traceable. 5. After filing of the said reply, the petitioner filed additional affidavit dated 30.11.2005 but no reply has been filed. The issue involved in the present writ petition is whether the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension is payable from the date of application or from the date of order. 6. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that Honble the Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 2, in Para No. 11(c) has held that the pension should be paid from the date of receipt of original application. Further submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that even if the rules are silent, then also the respondents are under an obligation to follow, the uniform norm for payment of pension in cases of similarly situated person. It is not open for them to grant one person the pension from the date of application and to another from the date of order, as held by Honble the Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (Supra). 7. The submission of the Counsel for the respondents is that the grant of pension from the date of application or from the date of filing of the writ petition or from the date of Judgment of the writ petition is discretionary and the discretion exercised by them is not open for judicial review. 8. I have considered the contents of the writ petition as well as rival submissions of the parties. 9. In case before the Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (Supra), while rejecting the arguments of payment of pension prospectively, Freedom Fighters pension Scheme of 1972 was under consideration wherein some of the application said to have been filed after expiry of the time but Honble the Supreme Court after consideration of entire facts and circumstances as well as aim and object of the pension scheme, has held that the application filed after expiry of time be entertained and the same was required to be expeditiously disposed of and further it was held that the pension should be paid to the applicants from the date of original application irrespective of the fact of other requirements. Para 11 of the said Judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “11. We decline to go into the facts of the individual petitioners in this petition and direct the respondents as follows:- .(a) The respondents should accept the applications of the petitioners irrespective of the date on which they are made. The applications received hereafter should also be entertained without raising the plea that they are beyond the prescribed date. .(b) Therespondents should scrutinise every application and the evidence produced in support of the claim and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible and in any case within three months of the receipt of the application, keeping in view the laudable and sacrosanct object of the Scheme. .(c) The pension should be paid to the applicant from the date on which the original application is received whether the application is filed with or without the requisite evidence. The sanction of the pension would, however, be subject to the requisite proof in support of the claim.” (emphasis supplied) 10. Although the said Judgment is of the Pension Scheme, 1972 wherein also no specific provision for payability of the date of pension has been quoted and the same is the position in the Scheme of 1980 and, therefore, the same would apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. Even after placing of the order of pension passed in the year 1990 and payment from the year 1988 of Lalaram, the respondents have not been able to controvert the same. I have also gone through the said documents and to me there appears to be no reason to distinguish the case of the present petitioner from the case of Lalaram. Thus, the case Lalaram is identical to the case of the present petitioners. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to make payment of arrears of pension to the petitioner from 01.01.1988 to 16.07.1997 as revised from time to time within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.