Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 578 (GAU)

Rani Bala Saha v. Union of India

2010-08-12

C.R.SARMA, I.A.ANSARI

body2010
JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. The above three writ appeals involve the question regarding entitlement of freedom fighters' pension, under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972, by the Freedom Fighters and the members of their family. The common judgment and order, dated 13.12.2004, passed by the learned Single Judge in (1) W.P.(C) No. 276 of 1999, filed by Smti Rani Bala Saha, (2) W.P.(C) No. 281 of 1999, filed by Smti Hemlata Saha, (3) W.P.(C) No. 282 of 1999, filed by Smti Parul Rani Saha and in nine other writ petitions filed by Ors., is in challenge in this set of writ appeals. As this set of writ appeals, arising out of the said cordon judgment and order, carry common question of law, on almost identical factual premises and represented by the same sets of Advocates, for sake of convenience and as agreed to by the learned Counsels representing the parties, the above three writ appeals have been heard together and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment and order. 2. The Government of India introduced a scheme, known as Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972, for grant of pension to the freedom fighters or in case of death, to their families. The scheme provided income bar indicating, therein, that freedom fighters having annual income less than Rs. 5,000/- from all sources would be entitled to pension if he/she had suffered imprisonment for at least six months for their participation in the freedom struggle. Persons claiming to have suffered imprisonment for six months, for the purpose of pension, are required to furnish Prison document viz. certificate from the concerned Jail authority. District Magistrate or the State. In case of non-availability of such certificate, a co-prisoner's certificate from the sitting MP or MLA or from an Ex-MP or Ex-MLA specifying the jail period, undergone by the person concerned is required to be furnished. This scheme was replaced by Anr. scheme, called 'Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme (hereinafter called the 'SSSPS'), w.e.f. 01.08.1980, thereby removing the income ceiling and liberalizing the term of imprisonment from six months to three months in case of woman freedom fighters and Ors. belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community. The requirement of Jail certificate or in the event of non-availability of such certificate, a co-prisoner's certificate, from at least two prominent freedom fighters remained unchanged. belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community. The requirement of Jail certificate or in the event of non-availability of such certificate, a co-prisoner's certificate, from at least two prominent freedom fighters remained unchanged. However, it was provided that a single certificate from MP, MLA or Ex-MP or Ex-MLA would serve the purpose. Accordingly, the writ Petitioners-Appellants' husbands (since deceased) applied for pension, under the said scheme, and the Govt. of India granted them provisional pension. Subsequently, the said pension was kept under suspension and notices were issued to the applicants asking them to submit representation as to why the pension should not be cancelled for want of sufficient documentary evidence of suffering imprisonment and due to failure of the applicants, to finish required documents, the Government of India cancelled the pension granted to the husbands of the writ Petitioners-Appellants. Being aggrieved, the writ Petitioners-Appellants filed individual writ petitions and the learned Single Judge, by the common judgment and order aforesaid, dismissed the writ petitions. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the writ Petitioners have come up with the present writ appeals. 3. In order to appreciate the individual cases, it would be appropriate to, briefly, state the writ Petitioners-Appellants' individual cases as follows: Writ Appeal No. 06 of 2005 (In W.P.(C) No. 276 of 1999) According to the writ Petitioner-Appellant, her husband. Late Birendra Chandra Saha was an ex freedom fighter and he suffered imprisonment for 9(nine) months, during the period 1930-31, in Dacca Jail in connection with Civil Disobedience Movement. Political pension having been applied for, by the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband, the Govt. of India, under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972, initially granted pension @ Rs. 200/- per month, which was subsequently increased from time to time. The husband of the writ Petitioner-Appellant had finished various certificates including a certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Govt. of Tripura, in support of his claim of having undergone imprisonment aforesaid. Subsequently, the payment of the said pension was suspended, asking the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband to produce jail certificate or co-prisoner's certificate, from the MP, Ex-MP, MLA or Ex-MLA, regarding imprisonment undergone by the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband. of Tripura, in support of his claim of having undergone imprisonment aforesaid. Subsequently, the payment of the said pension was suspended, asking the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband to produce jail certificate or co-prisoner's certificate, from the MP, Ex-MP, MLA or Ex-MLA, regarding imprisonment undergone by the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband. According to the Petitioner, while suspending the pension, pending enquiry, the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband was asked to submit reply, within 21 days indicating therein as to why the pension should not be cancelled, and as directed, the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband had submitted reply to the said show cause notice, praying for withdrawal of the suspension order, but the Respondents, without conducting any enquiry, cancelled the pension of the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband, who died on 04.01.1979. Subsequently, the writ Petitioner-Appellant, being the widow of the said freedom fighter, prayed for restoration of pension of her deceased husband and for allowing her to draw the same. Since, the Respondents did not restore the pension of her deceased husband, the writ Petitioner-Appellant approached this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Respondents contested the writ Petitioner-Appellant's claim by filing affidavits-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was contended that the husband of the writ Petitioner-Appellant did not submit any certificate from Member of the Parliament, or Ex-Member of the Parliament, or Member of the Legislative Assembly, or Ex-Member of the Legislative Assembly, or co-prisoner's certificate, in support of his contention regarding undergoing imprisonment in Dacca Jail except a certificate from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, who had no authority to issue such certificate and as such the certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, was not an appropriate document, in support of the writ Petitioner-Appellant's claim. While denying the writ Petitioner-Appellant's allegations of not affording opportunity as well as not holding enquiry, the answering Respondents, in their affidavit-in-opposition, stated that the document submitted by the applicants were verified by the 'Freedom Fighters' Review Committee' as per the provision of the scheme and that the Review Committee did not find it fit to recommend the case of the husband of the writ Petitioner-Appellant for restoration of his pension. It was further contended that the pension of the husband of the writ Petitioner-Appellant could not be restored for want of supporting document. It was further contended that the pension of the husband of the writ Petitioner-Appellant could not be restored for want of supporting document. Writ Appeal No. 09 of 2005 (In W.P.(C) No. 281 of 1999) According to the writ Petitioner-Appellant, her husband Late Banamali Saha was an ex freedom fighter, who participated in the National Movement and Civil Disobedience Movement during the pre-independence period. Under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972, the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband had applied for pension by submitting the necessary certificates and affidavit in support of his application. Accordingly, pension was granted to the husband of the writ Petitioner-Appellant w.e.f. 15th February, 1989, but the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, by his communication dated 31.05.1991, stopped the payment of pension until further instructions, without hearing the husband of the writ Petitioner-Appellant. Subsequently, the cases of freedom fighters' pension were reviewed and it was observed that the husband of the writ Petitioner-Appellant did not furnish any acceptable documentary evidence in support of his claim. Accordingly, the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband was asked to furnish representation thereby showing cause as to why the provisional pension should not be cancelled. As directed, the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband submitted his reply, but the said provisional pension, granted to husband of the writ Petitioner-Appellant, was cancelled, without giving opportunity of being heard. Subsequently, due to death of her husband, the writ Petitioner-Appellant invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, approached this Court by filing a writ petition seeking a direction for restoration of pension of her deceased husband from the date of suspension/cancellation of the same and for grant of pension to the Petitioner. The Respondents contested the writ Petitioner-Appellant's claim by filing affidavits-in-opposition. In their affidavit-in-opposition, the answering Respondents submitted that the writ Petitioner-Appellant as well as her husband failed to furnish necessary documents in support of the plea that the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband had suffered imprisonment in the Comilla jail for which the provisional pension granted to the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband was kept under suspension. In their affidavit-in-opposition, the answering Respondents submitted that the writ Petitioner-Appellant as well as her husband failed to furnish necessary documents in support of the plea that the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband had suffered imprisonment in the Comilla jail for which the provisional pension granted to the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband was kept under suspension. It is also contended, on behalf of the Respondents, that the application submitted by the husband of the writ Petitioner-Appellant was forwarded to the Freedom Fighters' Pension Review Committee and the Committee, after examining the matter, did not recommend the case of the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband for grant of political pension and that the Government of India issued notice to the husband of the writ Petitioner-Appellant requiring him to show cause, within 21 days, as to why the pension should not be cancelled for want of sufficient documentary evidence. It has been further contended, on behalf of the Respondents, that the Union of India found that the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband was not eligible for political pension on the ground that he failed to furnish documentary evidence and as such cancelled the pension after giving opportunity of submitting representation. It is further contended that neither the husband of the writ Petitioner-Appellant, in his life-time, nor the writ Petitioner-Appellant could prove the factum of suffering imprisonment by producing necessary document as prescribed by the Scheme. Writ Appeal No. 10 of 2005 (In W.P.(C) No. 282 of l999) According to the writ Petitioner-Appellant, her husband. Late Bhusan Chandra Saha was an ex freedom fighter, who participated in the National Movement and the Civil Disobedience Movement during the pre-independence period. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, issued a certificate, on 22.03.1972, to the effect that her husband was a freedom fighter of India and that he had suffered imprisonment for eight months during 1941-42 in Comilla jail. Under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972, the husband of the writ Petitioner-Appellant applied for pension and on receipt of his application, the Govt. of India sanctioned pension w.e.f. 15.08.1972, which he received till February, 1976. But w.e.f. 24th February, 1976, the pension of her husband was suspended, without giving, any prior show cause notice or, opportunity of being heard. Subsequently, the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, by his letter dated 27.09.1976, cancelled the pension of the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband. of India sanctioned pension w.e.f. 15.08.1972, which he received till February, 1976. But w.e.f. 24th February, 1976, the pension of her husband was suspended, without giving, any prior show cause notice or, opportunity of being heard. Subsequently, the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, by his letter dated 27.09.1976, cancelled the pension of the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband. Though the husband of the writ Petitioner-Appellant, who died on 10.04.1997, during his life-time, submitted several representations, for restoration of his pension, no response was received. Thereafter also the writ Petitioner-Appellant submitted representation, requesting restoration of the pension of her deceased husband. But, as the pension of her husband was not restored, the writ Petitioner-Appellant, invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, approached this Court, seeking a direction for restoration of pension of her deceased husband from the date of suspension/cancellation of the same and for release the pension with interest thereon. The writ Petitioner-Appellant's claim was contested by the Respondents, by filing affidavits-in-opposition, wherein it was contended that the application, along with the documents, submitted by the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband, was sent to the Selection Committee and that on review it was found by the said Committee that the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband was ineligible for grant of pension and as such the provisional pension, which was wrongly sanctioned, was put under suspension for want of acceptable documentary evidence. It is also stated, in the said affidavit-in-opposition, that a show cause notice, dated 10.07.1991 was served on the husband of the writ Petitioner-Appellant asking him to represent as to why the provisional pension, granted to him, should not be cancelled, but as he failed to produce acceptable documentary evidence in support of his claim his provisional pension was cancelled on 08.12.1999. The substance of the contentions, made by the Respondents was that the cases of the writ Petitioner-Appellants were reviewed by the Committee and that, upon review, it was found that the applicants could not produce acceptable documentary evidence as per the Government of India's guideline, in support of their claim of undergoing imprisonment. Therefore, it is stated, on behalf of the Respondents, that the provisional pension was cancelled after giving sufficient opportunity to substantiate their claims. 4. Therefore, it is stated, on behalf of the Respondents, that the provisional pension was cancelled after giving sufficient opportunity to substantiate their claims. 4. The learned Single Judge, having heard both the parties, dismissed the writ petitions, with the observation that as the writ Petitioners/their husbands failed to produce necessary documents in support of their claim no interference in respect of the suspension/cancellation of the pension was called for. 5. We have heard Mr. A.L. Saha, learned Counsel spearing for the Appellants. We have also heard Mr. A. Lodh, learned Asstt. Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India (Respondent No. 1) and Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State of Tripura (Respondent No. 2). 6. Mr. A.L. Saha, learned Counsel, appearing for the Appellants, has submitted that the documents/certificates, submitted by the writ Petitioners-Appellants' husbands, were sufficient documentary evidence to support their claim that they had undergone imprisonment, in connection with the freedom movement and that the Respondents committed illegality by cancelling the pension, without giving opportunity of being heard. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge committed error by dismissing the writ petitions, preferred by the writ Petitioners-Appellants, on the ground of non-availability of sufficient document. 7. Refuting the said argument, advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, Mr. A. Lodh, learned Asstt. S.G. and Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively have submitted that under the Scheme of 1972, it has been specifically mentioned that in support of the claim of suffering imprisonment, during the freedom movement, the applicant is required to furnish a certificate from the concerned Jail authority. District Magistrate or the State Government and in absence of non-availability of such certificate, a co-prisoner's certificate from a sitting MP or MLA or from an Ex-MP or an Ex-MLA, specifying the jail period, is required to be furnished along with the application, but the writ Petitioner-Appellants' husbands failed to submit said necessary documents, for which the provisional pension was cancelled, after giving opportunity to submit representation within 21 days. On behalf of the Respondents, it is also submitted that as the writ Petitioner-Appellants' husbands failed to submitted required documents, within the stipulated period, the provisional pension granted to the writ Petitioner-Appellants' husbands was cancelled for want of sufficient documentary evidence. On behalf of the Respondent No. 1, Mr. On behalf of the Respondents, it is also submitted that as the writ Petitioner-Appellants' husbands failed to submitted required documents, within the stipulated period, the provisional pension granted to the writ Petitioner-Appellants' husbands was cancelled for want of sufficient documentary evidence. On behalf of the Respondent No. 1, Mr. A. Lodh, learned Asstt. S.G has further submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the writ Petitioner-Appellants' husbands, by asking them to submit representation, within 21 days, but they failed to substantiate their claim by furnishing necessary documents. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-Respondent No. 2, joining Mr. A. Lodh, learned Asstt. S.G., has submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, who issued the documents/certificates in favour of the writ Petitioner-Appellants' husbands, was not the appropriate authority prescribed by the Scheme for issuing such certificates and as such the said certificates were not proper document in the eye of law. Supporting the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, the learned Counsels, spearing for the Respondents, have submitted that the learned Single Judge rightly refused to grant the reliefs sought in the said writ petitions on the ground of non-availability of necessary documentary evidence. 8. From the pleadings of both the parties, it transpires that the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husbands had applied for political pension on the ground of suffering imprisonment in connection with the independence movement during the pre-independence period and though provisional pension was granted to the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husbands, the same was initially suspended and, thereafter, cancelled for want of sufficient documentary evidence in terms of the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972, which Scheme was subsequently replaced by Anr. scheme called "Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme" (for short SSSPS). In order to appreciate the contentions raised by both the parties, we have carefully perused the Scheme aforesaid and the materials on record. Under the Scheme of 1972, the applicant is required to furnish the following document with the application. Certificate from the concerned jail authorities, District Magistrates or the State Governments. In case of non-availability of such certificates, co-prisoner certificate from a sitting M.P. or M.L.A. or from an ex-M.P. or an ex-M.L.A. specifying the jail period. The eligibility criteria prescribed by clause-3 of the said Scheme is as follows: (a) A person who has suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the mainland jails before Independence. In case of non-availability of such certificates, co-prisoner certificate from a sitting M.P. or M.L.A. or from an ex-M.P. or an ex-M.L.A. specifying the jail period. The eligibility criteria prescribed by clause-3 of the said Scheme is as follows: (a) A person who has suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the mainland jails before Independence. However, ex-INA or ex-Military personnel will be eligible for pension if the imprisonment/detention suffered by them was outside India. EXPLANATION: 1. Detention under the orders of the competent authority will be considered as imprisonment. 2. Period of normal remission will be treated as part of actual imprisonment. 3. In the case of a trial ending in conviction, under-trial period will be counted towards actual imprisonment suffered. 4. Broken periods of imprisonment will be totaled up and counted as one. (b) A person who remained underground for more than six months provided he was- 1. a proclaimed offender; or 2. one on whom an award for arrest was announced; or 3. one for whose detention order was issued but not served. (c) A person interned in his home or externed from his district provided the period of internment/externment was for six months or more. (d) A person whose property was confiscated or attached and sold due to participation in the freedom struggle. (e) A person who became permanently incapacitated during firing or lathi charge. (f) A person who lost his job, civil or military or means of livelihood for participation in National movements. A Martyr is a person who died or who was killed in action or in detention or was awarded capital punishment while participating in a National Movement for emancipation of India. It will include an ex-INA or ex-Military person who died fighting the British. The procedure of applying for the pension has been laid down as follows: PROCEDURE: How to apply: Persons who consider themselves eligible for pension under the Scheme should apply in duplicate in the prescribed form. One form duly filled and supported by available documents should be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and the second copy to the Chief Secretary to the State Government/Union Territory concerned. Application forms can be obtained from any of these offices. The applicant should furnish documents indicated below with the application: (a) Imprisonment/detention etc. Certificates from the concerned jail authorities. District Magistrates or the State Governments. Application forms can be obtained from any of these offices. The applicant should furnish documents indicated below with the application: (a) Imprisonment/detention etc. Certificates from the concerned jail authorities. District Magistrates or the State Governments. In case of non-availability of such certificates, co-prisoner certificate from a sitting M.P. or M.L.A. or from an ex-M.P. or an ex-M.L.A. specifying the jail period. In view of the above, the Scheme has clearly mentioned as to what are the documents/proof to be furnished along with the application and also the appropriate authority, who can issue the certificates aforesaid. 9. Admittedly, as revealed from the record, Late Buendra Chandra Saha, huband of Smti Rani Bala Saha i.e. the writ Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 279 of 1999, in support of his claim of suffering imprisonment, submitted a certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional officer, Sadar, Govt. of Tripura, on 11.01.1972. In the said certificate, it was mentioned that Birendra Chandra Saha suffered imprisonment for nine months during 1930-31, in Dacca jail in connection with C.D. Movement. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, who issued the said certificate, was an officer from Tripura and the jail, in which the writ Petitioner-Appellant's husband had allegedly suffered imprisonment, was situated in Dacca (now in Bangladesh i.e. former East Pakistan). Similarly, in respect of Late Bhushan Chandra Saha, husband of Smti Parul Rani Saha, who is the writ Petitioner in W.P.(C)No. 282 of 1999, a certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Govt. of Tripura on 22.03.1972, wherein it was mentioned that Bhushan Chandra Saha had suffered imprisonment for eight months during 1941-42, in Comilla jail, in connection with C.D. Movement and Quit India Movement, was furnished. Except the said two certificates, the applicants aforesaid did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of their case. Under the Scheme of 1972, as discussed above, the Sub-Divisional Officer is not the appropriate authority to issue such certificate. It has already been noticed that, under the provision, prescribed by the Scheme of 1972, the certificates regarding imprisonment/detention are required to be issued by the concerned Jail authorities or the State Government or a co-prisoner, who should be a sitting MP, or MLA or Ex-MP or an Ex-MLA, specifying therein the jail period. In view of the above, it clearly transpires that the writ Petitioner-Appellants' husbands, who were granted provisional pension, did not furnish the required document. In view of the above, it clearly transpires that the writ Petitioner-Appellants' husbands, who were granted provisional pension, did not furnish the required document. Similarly, Late Banamali Saha, husband of Smti Hemlata Saha, writ Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 281 of 1999, while applying for pension, did not submit the necessary document from the appropriate authority, as prescribed by the Scheme of 1972. As stated in the affidavit-in-opposition, filed by the Respondents, Banamli Saha submitted certificates from Sri Anukul Chandra Saha (dated 05.04.1981), Sri Ananda Mohan Das (dated 02.04.1981) and Sri Bharat Sarma Roy (dated 28.07.1974) respectively, in support of his claim that he had suffered imprisonment for eight months in Comilla jail during the period 1930-31. The said certificates were not issued by co-prisoner, who is/was a sitting MP or MLA or Ex-MP or Ex-MLA. In the counter-affidavit, submitted on behalf of the Respondent No. 2, it was clearly stated that the writ Petitioners-Appellants' husbands failed to submit necessary document as prescribed by the Scheme. As discussed above, from the record, it is found that the documentary evidence i.e. the certificates furnished by the husbands of the writ Petitioners-Appellants' were not the documents prescribed by the Scheme and the issuing authorities also were not the appropriate authority to issue such certificates. Therefore, we find no difficulty in concluding that the writ Petitioners-Appellants' husbands failed to furnish the necessary documentary evidence as per the Scheme and thus they could not substantiate that they were entitled to get political pension under the terms of the Scheme aforesaid. 10. The second point, urged, on behalf of the writ Petitioners-Appellants, is that the orders of suspension of pension, followed by the cancellation orders, were passed by the authority without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and that the principle of natural justice was violated. 11. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and the documents furnished. From the record, it is found that the pension, granted to the writ Petitioners'-Appellants' husbands was the provisional pension, issuance of which was subject to review. In the sanction order, it was clearly mentioned that the sanction of pension would be subject to review by the President and that the same was liable to be cancelled without any notice, if it was found that the same was sanctioned on mistaken ground or false information. In the sanction order, it was clearly mentioned that the sanction of pension would be subject to review by the President and that the same was liable to be cancelled without any notice, if it was found that the same was sanctioned on mistaken ground or false information. In their affidavit-in-opposition, the Respondents submitted that the cases of the writ Petitioners-Appellants' husbands were referred to the Review Committee and the Committee did not recommend their cases for grant of pension. It is also contended, the provision pension, which was granted initially was suspended for want of acceptable document. The Respondents, in their affidavits-in-opposition, stated that though writ Petitioners-Appellants' husbands were asked to produce acceptable documents in support of their claims, they failed to furnish the certificates as prescribed by the Scheme. 12. From the Memorandum, dated 10th, July, 1991, issued by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, copy of which was furnished to Shri Banamali Saha (i.e. husband of the writ Petitioner Smti Hemlata Saha in W.P.(C) No. 281 of 1999), it is found that Banamali Saha was given an opportunity to show cause as to why provisional pension should not be cancelled on the ground of non-submission of sufficient documentary evidence. By the said communication, he was asked to submit his report within 21 days from the date of issue of the said letter. Similarly, the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, vide Memorandum dated 22.12.1976, informed Sri Birendra Chandra Saha (husband of the writ Petitioner Smti Rani Bala Saha in W.P.(C) No. 276 of 1999), that the relevant documents were not produced by the applicant for being eligible to get pension. Accordingly, by the said Memorandum, the writ Petitioner's husband was asked to submit representation as to why the provisional pension should not be cancelled on the above grounds. An opportunity was given to submit representation within 21 days from the date of issue of the said communication. In the affidavit-in-opposition, filed on behalf of the Union of India, it clearly stated that Sri Bhushan Ch. Saha (husband of the writ Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 282/1990), was asked to show cause as to why fee provisional pension should not be cancelled on the ground of not recommending his case by the State Government due to failure to produce acceptable documentary evidence. Saha (husband of the writ Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 282/1990), was asked to show cause as to why fee provisional pension should not be cancelled on the ground of not recommending his case by the State Government due to failure to produce acceptable documentary evidence. In the Scheme, the type of acceptable documentary evidence/certificate was clearly mentioned, therefore, from the available records, it is found sufficient opportunity was given to the writ Petitioners-Appellants' husbands to submit their representations their insufficient documentary evidence and thus, opportunity was given to furnish acceptable documents. There is nothing on record to find that the writ Petitioners or their husbands had ever furnished acceptable documentary evidence as prescribed by the Scheme. As the writ petitioner or their husbands failed to furnish the prescribed documents, there was no scope to restore their pension, which was provisionally given to the writ Petitioners' husbands. 13. Admittedly, for scrutinizing the applications, submitted by the applicants, seeking pension under the Scheme, a Review Committee was constituted with renowned freedom fighters' and the Committee scrutinized all fee applications submitted by the applicants. Subsequently, Anr. Review Committee was also constituted by the State Government, which also again considered fee cases of fee applicants, who could not furnish prison certificate or co-prisoner's certificate, and after verification, fee Review Committee declined to recommend the cases of the writ Petitioners-Appellants' husbands for want of genuineness in respect of the applicants' claim. 14. The writ Petitioners-Appellants also, nowhere pleaded that they had submitted acceptable documentary evidence, as required by the Scheme. In discharging public function, more so in granting financial benefits certain rules/regulations/guidelines are required to be followed. No such benefit, that too involving public fund, can be extended simply on being asked for or, at the mere pleasure to the authority concerned. As the Government had laid down guidelines, prescribing the necessary criteria and requirement of furnishing certain specific documents/certificates as documentary evidence, in support of the claim, as prerequisite for grant of political pension, there could be no deviation from such requirement. As the Government had laid down guidelines, prescribing the necessary criteria and requirement of furnishing certain specific documents/certificates as documentary evidence, in support of the claim, as prerequisite for grant of political pension, there could be no deviation from such requirement. In our considered opinion, as the writ Petitioners-Appellants, in spite of granting opportunity, failed to furnish necessary certificate, as prescribed by the Scheme, the learned trial Judge committed no error by refusing to accept the contention of the learned Counsel, appearing for the Appellants, that the application supported by an affidavit, that too without any supporting necessary proof i.e. prison certificate or co-prisoner's certificate, was enough for granting pension under the Scheme. In support of his contention, Mr. A.L. Saha, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants relied on the decisions held in the cases of (1) Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 3883 , (2) Dhirendra Ch. Roy v. Union of India and Anr. 1998 (4) GLT 416 and (3) Shanti Bala Bhattacharjee v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 249 of 2001). 15. In the case of Dhirendra Ch. Roy (supra), the Petitioner, while submitting his application, supported by an affidavit, furnished one certificate issued by the SDO and Anr. certificate issued by a former Finance Minister of Tripura, who was a co-prisoner. The said Finance Minister, while issuing the certificate, specifically stated that he was imprisoned, in Dacca jail, in 1941, for ten months for his participation in the freedom movement. As the Finance Minister was an Ex-MLA, the certificate issued by him was in conformity with the requirement of the Scheme, but in the case in hand no such certificate, from co-prisoner was furnished. In the Scheme aforesaid, it was specifically mentioned that the applicant should furnish the documents indicated in the said Scheme. 16. Referring to the case of Shanti Bala Bhattacharjee (supra), the learned Single Judge observed that the above referred case was decided in the absence of any counter-affidavit from the Union of India and that in the said case the applicant had furnished a certificate issued by Sri Krishnadas Bhattacharjee, a former Minister of Tripura and that the said Minister, being an MLA or an Ex-MLA, the certificate issued by the said Minister fulfilled the requirement of the Scheme. The learned Single Judge, deciding the above referred case, made it clear that in case the certificates are found to be fake and forged, the authorities, after conducting an investigation, may stop the pension. In the present case, both the Union of India and the State of Tripura contested the writ petition, by filing affidavits-in-opposition, and specifically pleaded that the claimants did not furnished acceptable documentary evidence/certificates and that opportunity was given to the applicants before passing the cancellation order in respect of the pension. Therefore, as the applicant failed to furnish the documents, mentioned in the said Scheme, the decision rendered in the above referred case does not help the present Appellants. 17. In the case of Gurdial Singh (supra), the Apex Court observed that the claim for political pension is required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touch-stone of beyond all reasonable doubt. In the above referred case, the Appellant, who claimed to be a driver of the Indian National Army (for short 'INA'), raised by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, produced a driving licence issued in Thailand along with an affidavit, stating, therein, that he had undergone imprisonment in Bangkok and Singapore detention camps as INA personnel of war for more than six months. He also sent two affidavits of the co-prisoners, who were also detained in the said prison, besides furnishing Photostat copies of the INA driving licence, certificates issued in his favour by Captain Bishan Singh Sanghai of INA regarding his training in weapon in 4th company of the INA. Despite furnishing all such information, his prayer for pension was rejected. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court and the same was allowed setting aside the impugned order with direction to the Respondents to re-decide his case in the light of the documents produced in the High Court. Subsequently, the Government of Punjab granted provisional pension w.e.f. 25.04.1998. As the pension was granted w.e.f. 25.04.1998 instead of 12.03.1973, the Appellant filed Anr. writ petition. The said writ petition was allowed, directing the Respondents to consider the Appellant's case for grant of pension from the date of his application within two months, but the Respondents issued a show cause notice to the Appellant calling upon him to show cause as to why his pension should not cancelled. Accordingly, the Appellant filed his reply. However, the Govt. Accordingly, the Appellant filed his reply. However, the Govt. of India, on 01.11.2000, cancelled its earlier order, by which the Appellant was granted pension w.e.f. 25.04.1998. Justifying their action, the Respondents filed counter-affidavit, stating that as there were some discrepancies and contradictions in the claim of the Appellant, file order, granting him pension, was cancelled. It was also stated that the pension was earlier wrongly granted to the Appellant. A writ petition being filed challenging the said order of cancellation, the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of there being disputed questions of facts. Hence, the Appellant carried the appeal to the Supreme Court. The Apex Court, while allowing the appeal, observed: 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 scheme have 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 touch-stone 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. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, in the above-referred case, was with regard to the standard of proof in respect of claim of political pension. The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, in the above-referred case, was with regard to the standard of proof in respect of claim of political pension. In the above referred case, the Appellant, apart from submitting his driving licence and certificate of his engagement in the INA, furnished two affidavits of the co-prisoners and on the basis of the said certificates, as directed by the High Court, the Appellant was granted political pension, which was subsequently cancelled on the ground of certain discrepancies in respect of the information furnished and not on the ground of insufficient or absence of acceptable document. But in the present cases, the Appellants failed to furnish the required documents, from the appropriate authority, as prescribed by the Scheme. That apart, their cases were duly considered by the Review Committee and the Committee found their cases not fit for recommendation. Therefore, the factual position in the above referred case and the factual position of the cases in hand not being same, any declaration, declaring the writ Petitioners-Appellants' husbands fit for getting the political pension, in the face of the attending facts and circumstances would amount to negating the procedure prescribed by the said scheme. As there is duly noticed procedure/guidelines until such procedure/guidelines are declared to be null and void or cancelled the requirement prescribed by the said guidelines should be followed, and one, seeking benefit under such Scheme/guidelines/procedure, should comply with the minimum requirement of such procedure/scheme. That apart, as rightly noted by the learned Single Judge, neither the Review Committee, constituted by the Government nor the Review Committee, constituted under the direction of the Court, recommended the writ Petitioners-Appellants' cases for pension as the Committee after due scrutiny did not find the claims to be genuine. In their affidavit-in-opposition, the Union of India and the State of Tripura, contended that the claim of the writ Petitioners-Appellants were not found genuine by the Review Committee and also that, after giving reasonable opportunity of show cause, the provisional pension of the husband of the writ Petitioners-Appellants were cancelled. The said contentions made in the affidavit-in-opposition, filed on behalf of the Respondents, remained unchallenged. For no counter was filed against the said contention. 18. The said contentions made in the affidavit-in-opposition, filed on behalf of the Respondents, remained unchallenged. For no counter was filed against the said contention. 18. It was further contended on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 that the Central Government was ready to reconsider the cases of the wait Petitioners-Appellants' for granting pension/family pension, provided the writ Petitioners-Appellants' could produce the required documentary evidence in support of claim of suffering. 19. From the contentions made in the above affidavit-in-opposition, filed on behalf of the Union of India, it is found that the provisional pension was cancelled for want of necessary documentary evidence as prescribed by the Scheme and though the Government was all along ready to reconsider the matter, subject to production of the required document, the writ Petitioners or their husbands failed to substantiate that their claims by furnishing acceptable documents/certificates. Therefore, it appears that sufficient opportunity was given to the husbands' of the writ Petitioners-Appellants to show cause as to why the provisional pension should not be cancelled for want of necessary document. 20. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the matter and the pleadings put forward by the parties, we find no difficulty in concluding that neither the writ Petitioners-Appellants nor their deceased husbands could produce the required documents, prescribed by the Scheme, to substantiate their claims of suffering imprisonment in connection with the freedom movement of India. As the deceased husbands of the writ Petitioners-Appellants or the writ Petitioners-Appellants failed to produce the required documents, the Respondents committed no illegality by cancelling the provisional pension granted to the husbands of the writ Petitioners-Appellants for want of necessary documentary evidence. As discussed above, in our considered opinion the cancellation order in respect of the pension was passed after giving opportunity to show cause and therefore, there was no violation of natural justice. 21. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in this set of writ appeals, requiring interference with the impugned judgment and order, passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, these three writ appeals stand dismissed without cost. Appeal dismissed.