Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 782 (AP)

Yelmareddy Suryamma v. Union of India

2011-09-19

NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

body2011
ORDER Hon'ble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao 1. This writ petition is instituted by Smt. Yelmareddy Suryamma, W/o Late Sri Gopal Reddy, seeking grant of the 'freedom fighters family pension' from the initial date of the submission of the application instead of from 19.05.2010. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband has participated in the Liberation Struggle of the Nizam State of Hyderabad during the years 1947 and 1948. For want of knowledge, the husband of the petitioner did not apply for Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension and when the writ petitioner became aware of the scheme, she applied for it. Her case was placed before the Hyderabad Special Screening Committee headed by Sri Rajeswara Rao, in the year 1997 and the said committee recommended her case to the Central Government for grant of freedom fighters pension. However, no steps were taken thereon. On 26.11.2008, the State Government has recommended for grant of pension. However, the Central Government rejected her claim on 03.12.2009 on the ground that 'Repala Border' Camp is not one of those camps recognized for grant of pension. However, the State Government informed the Central Government on 22.12.2006 that Sri B.N. Reddy, former Member of Parliament, has already been recognized as the camp in-charge of the Suryapet, Jaggugudem and Repala during the Hyderabad Liberation Movement and he has informed that several people have carried out various activities from Repala and they were all known as members of Suryapet Dalam and that some of them also took training to use arms in and around the hills located nearby to Suryapet town for a couple of months and hence Sri B.N. Reddy requested to treat the camp's name, in the verification-cum-entitlement report as Repala of Suryapet Revenue Sub-Division instead of Suryapet. Hence the State Government suggested to take into account the camp's name as Repala of Suryapet Sub-Division and on that basis consider the claims of the applicant. Inspite of this communication of the State Government, the Central Government has erroneously rejected the petitioner's claim on 03.12.2009 by setting out that Repala Border Camp is not one of the recognized camps for grant of pension. In those circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 481 of 2010 and this Court allowed the said writ petition on 03.02.2010 ordering for reconsideration of her case. In those circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 481 of 2010 and this Court allowed the said writ petition on 03.02.2010 ordering for reconsideration of her case. Pursuant thereto, the Central Government granted Freedom Fighters Family Pension through their proceedings dated 19.05.2010 from 03.02.2010, instead of from the date of petitioner's representation. Though the writ petitioner has submitted another representation on 11.08.2011 for grant of freedom Fighters Family Pension with effect from the initial date of submission of application, no orders were passed thereon. Hence, this writ petition is instituted seeking directions for grant of pension with effect from the date of application. 3. While, passing orders on 19.05.2010, it is stated that giving benefit of doubt, the claim of the petitioner for pension has been sanctioned with effect from 03.02.2010, the date on which this Court passed orders earlier in W.P. No. 481 of 2010. It is further pointed out that, no evidence of husband's underground suffering in the Border Camp during Hyderabad Liberation Movement has been produced by the applicant, but however, the State Government had recommended the claim on the basis of certificates given by other central freedom fighter pensioners. Therefore, the claim of the applicant has been considered based upon the recommendations of the State Government and those of the Screening Committee of Eminent Freedom Fighters (SCEFF). 4. The Central Government has filed a detailed counter affidavit in the matter. It is pointed out that initially the claims of persons who applied for pension based upon their sufferings in the Border Camps during Hyderabad Liberation Movement are not accepted as they did not fulfill the eligibility criteria under the 'Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980'. However, with a view to consider such cases also, Special Screening Committee was constituted. Wherever the applicants have failed to fulfill the eligibility criteria by furnishing the stipulated documentary evidence in support of their claim, such claims can be considered by giving them the benefit of doubt and thus the case of the petitioner has been considered for grant of family pension by extending the benefit of such a doubt as the petitioner could not produce any primary evidence as prescribed under the Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme relating to her husband's sufferings in the border camp. Further, the State Government has also not substantiated the claim with reference to any official records, but however the State Government's recommendation is based upon the Personal Knowledge Certificates (PKC) furnished by other freedom fighters. It is asserted that all cases where the benefit of doubt has been extended, the pension has been granted only prospectively. 5. It would be appropriate to first notice the salient features of the Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, and subsequent constitution of the Special Screening Committee. The Government of India, during the Silver Jubilee Year of Indian Independence introduced a scheme for grant of pension to freedom fighters and in case they have already died, to their eligible dependants, with effect from 15.08.1972. This original scheme has been refined and liberalized thus, brining in "Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980" with effect from 01.08.1980. All those persons who participated in the freedom movement in some way or the other are not rendered eligible but only few categories of sufferers have been rendered eligible. Those who are rendered eligible for grant of pension under the scheme are: i. Martyrs, who laid down their lives either in action or in detention or subsequent to completion of the capital punishment imposed against them for participation in the freedom struggle; ii. Those who have suffered imprisonment for a minimum period of six months and those who suffered imprisonment of three months in case of women and members belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe on account of participation in the freedom struggle; iii. Persons, on account of participation in freedom struggle, remained underground for a period of more than six months provided they are proclaimed as offenders, or those for whose arrest a reward was announced or of those against whom detention orders were issued but could not be served; iv. Those on account of participation in the freedom struggle, were interned in their home district or externed from their home district for a minimum period of six months; v. Persons whose properly was confiscated or attached or sold due to participation in the freedom struggle; vi. Those who became permanently incapacitated either during firing that was ordered or Lathi charge ordered; vii. Those who became permanently incapacitated either during firing that was ordered or Lathi charge ordered; vii. Those who have lost their Government job for participation in the freedom struggle provided they were not reinstated into service before expiry of two years from their initial date of dismissal or removal and they were not in receipt of benefits of pay and allowances for the said period; viii. Such of those, who were awarded punishment of a minimum of ten strokes of caning/flogging/whipping due to participation in the freedom struggle. 6. The eligible persons are required to produce relevant documents from official records or newspapers of the relevant time. The official records could be in the form of imprisonment/detention certificate from the jail 'authority concerned or the District Magistrate or the State Government indicating the period of sentence awarded, the date of admission, the date of release, the relevant facts of the case and the reasons for the release. In case the relevant records are not available, the secondary evidence in the form of certificates issued by two co-prisoners who have proven jail suffering for a minimum of one year period and who were inmates of the jail along with the applicants, can be produced. However, if a sitting or a former M.P or M.L.A happens to issue a certificate, that was considered as sufficient evidence of the suffering of the claimant. Similarly, secondary evidence in the form of Personal Knowledge Certificates (PKC) from any prominent freedom fighter who has proven jail suffering of a minimum of two years is also considered. Under the Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, the application should be sent in duplicate to the Chief Secretary of the concerned State/ Union Territory Administration and copy submitted to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Freedom Fighters Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. The claims would be processed by the Government of India only on receipt of verification and entitlement to pension report from the State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned. 7. From a perusal of the Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, it becomes clear that the credentials are required to be established by the applicants with reference to either primary or secondary evidence. 7. From a perusal of the Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, it becomes clear that the credentials are required to be established by the applicants with reference to either primary or secondary evidence. These requirements have been found to be difficult to be produced by majority of those who participated in the integration of the erstwhile Nizam State of Hyderabad with the rest of the Indian Union. Therefore, the Government of India in the Ministiy of Home Affairs through their office Memorandum No. 8/48/83-FF(P) dated 05.10.1983 announced the decision that the applications from such participants of the liberation struggle of the erstwhile Nizam State of Hyderabad be screened/scrutinized by a 'Special Screening Committee (SSC)' headed by Sri Govind Bhai Shroff of Aurangabad as Chairman and comprising of Sri Jagannath Rao Chanderki of Gulbarga District and Sri P. Thirumal Rao of Khammam District as members of the said committee. The Deputy Secretary in charge of the Freedom Fighters' Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs has been made the Convenor of this Committee. The meetings of this Committee were required to be held at New Delhi or at such other convenient places as may be decided upon by the Committee. The applications of eligible persons will be initially scrutinized by the Ministry of Home Affairs and then placed before the said committee for their recommendations. The strength of the Special Screening Committee has been enlarged by adding five more members thereto through an order passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 17.12.1996. The reconstituted committee is headed by Sri N. Giri Prasad and comprising of Sri Govind Bhai Shroff, Sri Kodati Narayana Rao, Sri V.P. Deulgaonkar, Sri Paga Pulla Reddy, Sri Ch. Rajeshwara Rao, Sri K.V. Keshavulu and Sri B.N. Reddy. By an order passed on 08.04.1997, the tenure of this Committee was extended up to 30.06.1997 and Sri N. Srinivasa Reddy has been included as an additional member of this Committee. Once again orders were passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 03.06.1997 appointing Sri Ch. Rajeshwara Rao as the Chairman of the committee, in view of the death of Sri N. Giri Prasad. Once again orders were passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 03.06.1997 appointing Sri Ch. Rajeshwara Rao as the Chairman of the committee, in view of the death of Sri N. Giri Prasad. On 28.02.2007, the Central Government had constituted a Committee of Officers to evolve mechanism and criteria to identify the freedom fighters who participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement and based on the recommendations of this Committee, it was decided to call for 100% re-verification of cases by the respective State Governments as the erstwhile Nizam State extended to regions which have formed part of States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra. It was also decided by the Government of India on 19.09.2007 / 10.10.2007 by their office memorandum to constitute a 'Screening Committee of Eminent Freedom Fighters (SCEFF)' to scrutinize each such case and to render their considered opinion in the matter. It was also desired that the process of re-verification of the cases by the concerned State Government and the scrutiny of SCEFF would go on concurrently. This Screening Committee of Eminent Freedom Fighters was constituted under the Chairmanship of Sri Konda Laxman Bapuji and comprised of Sri Dodda Narayan Rao, Sri Gowtama Rao, Sri Tirunagaru Gangadhar, Smt. Mallu Swarajyam, Sri G. Pichi Reddy and a representative each of the State Governments of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra, not below the rank of Secretary to the State Government, and the Director/Deputy Director in the Freedom Fighters Records Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs, looking after the work relating to Hyderabad Liberation Movement. The terms of reference of this Committee are: i. The Screening Committee will scrutinize only such cases which have been re-verified by the respective State Government as per the recommendation of the Committee of Officers and which are placed before it by the Ministry of Home Affairs; ii. Only those persons who had participated in the Border Camps for a minimum period of six months and, had participated in the freedom struggle up to 15.09.1948, i.e., before the Police action in Hyderabad, will be treated as eligible for grant of pension. iii. In cases where a decision has already been taken by the Government either to grant pension or to reject the claim, if the recommendation of the Committee is at variance with the earlier decision, it will record reasons for such recommendation. 8. iii. In cases where a decision has already been taken by the Government either to grant pension or to reject the claim, if the recommendation of the Committee is at variance with the earlier decision, it will record reasons for such recommendation. 8. Subsequently, when Sri Konda Laxman Bapuji resigned as Chairman of the Screening Committee of Eminent Freedom Fighters (SCEFF), it was reconstituted with Sri Boinapally Venkat Rama Rao as Chairperson and Sri Mandadi Ramchandra Reddy, Sri Mandapadu Satyanarayana, Sri Pasham Chandra Shekhar Reddy, Sri Shivlingappa S/o Basalingappa Patil of Gulbarga District, Karnataka and one eminent freedom fighter to be nominated by the Government of Maharashtra and a representative each of the State Governments of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, not below the rank of Secretary to the State Government, and the Director/Deputy Secretary in the FFR Division in the Ministry of Home Affairs as other members. The terms of reference of this reconstituted SCBFF are almost the same as were the originally constituted committee. Thus, various steps have been taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs to ensure that the cases of the freedom fighters who have participated in the Nizam State Liberation Movement are scrutinized so as to enable pension to be granted, wherever the claim was found to be genuine. 9. When the Government of India did not favourably consider the claims of those, whose applications have been filed after the prescribed date in that behalf, the Supreme Court by its Judgment in Mukund Lai Bhandari v. Union of India 1993 SCC Supp (3) 2, held that the Government stand in that regard is not justifiable, as those who participated in the freedom struggle either at the national level or in the erstwhile Nizam State, were scattered all over the country and most of them may be inhabiting in parts of the rural areas and most of them must have grown very old and above all the scheme has been introduced with a genuine desire to assist and honour those who had given their very best part of life for the sake of the country, and hence it ill-behoves the Government to raise pleas of limitation against such claims. In paragraph 8 of the said Judgment, as to the date that the benefit of the scheme should be extended from the date of claim or from the date, the required proof of eligibility of the pension is produced, it was accepted only partially. The Supreme Court has noticed that some of the claimants had made their applications either without necessary documentary proof or with insufficient proof. As it is unreasonable to expect that the freedom fighters and or their dependants would be readily in possession of the required documents and such documents have got to be secured either from the jail records or from persons who had been named in the scheme as competent to certify to the eligibility of the claimant, therefore, it was felt by the Supreme Court as unrealistic to expect the claimants to produce, the necessary documents within a fixed time frame limit. Therefore, the Supreme Court felt that neither the date of the application nor the date on which the required proof is furnished should make any difference to the entitlement of the benefit under the scheme. Hence, once the application is made, even if it is not accompanied by the requisite material, the date on which it is made, should be accepted as if it is produced on the date of preferment of the claim, irrespective of the date on which the said proof of eligibility is furnished. In paragraph 11 of this Judgment, the following directions have been issued by the Supreme Court. [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] The respondents should scrutinies 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, and the documents proof keeping in view the laudable and sacrosanct object of the Scheme. [c] The pension should he paid to the applicant front the date on which the original application is received whether the application is filed with or without the requisite evidence. The sanction of tile pension would, however, he subject to the requisite proof in support of the claim. 10. [c] The pension should he paid to the applicant front the date on which the original application is received whether the application is filed with or without the requisite evidence. The sanction of tile pension would, however, he subject to the requisite proof in support of the claim. 10. It is only appropriate to notice that Mukund Lai Bhandari's case has noticed the Judgments rendered earlier by it in Duli Chand v. Union of India 1990 Supp SCC 762 and Surja v. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 366 Subsequently the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the question as to whether the grant of freedom fighters pension on the footing of the "benefit of doubt" should be accorded prospectively, that is from the date on which the pension was sanctioned or from an earlier date namely the date of the application itself, in Union of India v. Ganesh Chandra Dolai (1997) 10 SCC 289 and in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Judgment rendered on 24.04.1995, the Court held as under: 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that he ratio in Duli Chand case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In Duli Chand case this Court had by the order dated 16-07-1990 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 cases 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. 5. Keeping in view the documents produced by the respondents before the Government, the respondents have been rightly given pension by the; Government of India from the date of the order. We allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore the order of the Government of India whereunder pension has been given to the respondents from the date of the order of the Government of India. No costs. 11. We allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore the order of the Government of India whereunder pension has been given to the respondents from the date of the order of the Government of India. No costs. 11. Once again, the Supreme Court reiterated this very principle in Union of India v. M.R. Chelliah Thevar C.A.No. 7762/96, decided on 30.04.1996 wherein the issue is concluded in the following manner: Heard counsel for both sides. On behalf of the union of India strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24th April, 1995. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on an earlier judgment of this Court in Muktmd Lai Bhandari and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 1993 Supp. (3) 2, as well as the decision in Amarnath Malhotra and Ors. v. Union of India dated 19th October, 1994. 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 respondents, 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 was recognised on that basis, the case would be covered by the first mentioned decision dated 24 April, 1995 (Union of India v. Ganesh Chandra Dolai and Ors.) 12. Once again, the Supreme Court had reiterated this very principle in Government of India v. K.V. Swaminathan (1997) 10 SCC 190 , in paragraph 3 in the following terms: 3. Once again, the Supreme Court had reiterated this very principle in Government of India v. K.V. Swaminathan (1997) 10 SCC 190 , in paragraph 3 in the following terms: 3. In view of the above settled legal position, though the respondent was not entitled to the pension as a freedom-fighter, he was given the relief on the basis of benefit of doubt. Therefore, he is entitled to the pension only from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. We are informed that pursuant to the order of the High Court, the amount has been released. Under this circumstance, the appellant is directed to deduct the paid amount proportionately from the amount payable in every month, instead of asking him to refund the amount. 13. Once again, the Supreme Court had reiterated the same principle in Union of India v. Kaushalaya Devi (2007) 9 SCC 525 , in the following words in paragraph 5 of the said Judgment. 5. In the present case, we have perused the record and found that it is stated therein that the claim was allowed on the basis of secondary nature of evidence. In other words, the claim was not allowed on the basis of jail certificate produced by the claimant but on the basis of oral statement of some other detenue. Hence, we are of the opinion that the pension should be granted from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. 14. It will be important to notice that the Supreme Court clearly pointed out the distinguishing features between Mukund Lai Bhandari's case and the rest of the cases noticed supra. 15. It, therefore, emerges from a careful analysis of the legal principles set out by the Supreme Court that, wherever the claim for a freedom fighters pension is based upon the proof of the eligibility criteria set out in Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, the claimant will have to be granted freedom fighters pension from the date he submits the application, though the actual proof may have been furnished subsequent to the date of the application. On the other hand, wherever the freedom fighters pension is ordered to be sanctioned extending the benefit of doubt on the strength of the secondary evidence produced by the claimant, in all such cases the pension will be sanctioned only from the date of the order and not from the date on which the application is submitted. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance upon the Judgment rendered by this Court on 02.07.2010 in Guda Taramani v. Union of India judgment in WP No. 1193 of 2004, dt. 2.7.2010, wherein a learned single Judge of this Court directed the Union of India to reconsider the petitioner's case therein for sanction of pension from 27.09.1989, for the first time when her husband has submitted the application. It is only appropriate to notice that in the above case the Special Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh has submitted a verification report based upon the Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) issued by the former M.L.A. and certificates issued by the central freedom fighter pensioners who were recognized as border camp in-charges and also based upon the recommendation of the Collector. 17. As was noticed supra, in the instant case, family pension was granted in favour of the petitioner with effect from 03.02.2010, though the orders were passed in that regard on 19.05.2010. The date 03.02.2010 is the one on which the writ petition filed by this petitioner earlier namely W.P. No. 481 of 2010 was allowed by this Court. 18. The narration of the sequence of events in these kind of cases discloses a pre-determined approach on the part of the Ministry of Home Affairs. It is seen that the Ministry of Home Affairs while, sanctioning the Freedom Fighters Pension has been routinely using the expression "benefit of doubt" as the basis for sanction. No effort is made to explain as to why a doubt has first of all arisen in the mind of Ministry of Home Affairs and is still persisting. For instance, the doubt was as to whether the border camp at Repala formed part of Suryapet camp at all or not? That doubt has been clarified long ago by Sri B.N. Reddy, former Member of Parliament, who was recognized as in-charge of Suryapet Camp during the Nizam State Liberation Movement, that the said Suryapet Camp has comprised of Jaggugudem and Repala also. That doubt has been clarified long ago by Sri B.N. Reddy, former Member of Parliament, who was recognized as in-charge of Suryapet Camp during the Nizam State Liberation Movement, that the said Suryapet Camp has comprised of Jaggugudem and Repala also. Therefore, such of those who have suffered by their participation in Jaggugudem and Repala Border Camps are required to be considered as to have participated in Suryapet camp itself. Therefore the Union of India can no longer treat Jaggugudem and Repala Camps as not forming part of the Suryapet camp activities. It was in fact pointed out by Sri B.N. Reddy, that the members who participated at Jaggugudem and Repala were also treated as members of "Suryapet Dalam" (Suryapet Command) in those days. What does this authentication mean and signify? It goes to establish beyond any pale of doubt that a good number of people have become members of the "Suryapet Dalam" and participated actively in the Nizam State Liberation Movement working from three (3) different locations namely Suryapet, Jaggugudem and Repala. Some of them could have taken to arms as well and others may have participated in the rest of the activities by raising support to the Dalam from the general public either by securing material contributions or rendering such other essential services as are necessary for the movement to gain strength and accomplish its objective. It will also be important to notice that majority of the members may have hoodwinked successfully the repressive elements of the Nizam State from either getting detected of their activities and contributions to the Dalam or may have effectively protected the rest of the members of the Dalam in any manner from being identified as well by the Nizam's State. History has recorded the various ways in which the struggles have been waged for securing liberation of the Nizam State. Therefore, so long as the participation of the husband of the writ petitioner in the activities of the Repala Border Camp forming part of the Suryapet Camp itself is not to be doubted, there cannot be any further scope in entertaining a doubt about the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner in the mind of Union of India. The theory of "benefit of doubt" presupposes that one cannot be too sure about the participation in the Liberation Movement. The theory of "benefit of doubt" presupposes that one cannot be too sure about the participation in the Liberation Movement. If it is confirmed with reference to any credible secondary evidence that the claimant's participation is not in doubt, then, the Government of India itself has not made any distinction between those claimants who produced the primary evidence and those who produced the secondary evidence in support of their claim. What is required to be sanctioned a Freedom Fighter Pension, is credible evidence, irrespective of whether it is in the form of primary or secondary nature. As was already noticed from the terms of reference of the Special Screening Committee of Eminent persons (SCEFF), it becomes clear that the Government of India wanted to ensure that even such claimants who are not having the advantage of producing primary evidence should be: granted the Freedom Fighters Pension, if they can produce secondary evidence. Once Freedom Fighters Pension is decided to be sanctioned, there is no distinction made by the Government of India to the effect that those who produce the primary evidence shall get pension from the date of their application and for those who produce secondary evidence, it shall be only from the date of the sanction of pension and not from the date of the application. In the absence of any such policy measure taken by the Government of India and without any effort to substantiate as to what exactly is the doubt in the mind of the Union of India with regard to the participation of the claimants or their principals as the case may be, the Union of India cannot mechanically repeat the word "benefit of doubt" and then try to restrict the grant of pension from the date of such an award. (sic) unsubstantiated statements resorted to would only reflect tire- anxiety to confine and limit the financial outlay in the matter of granting freedom fighters pensions. When the policy of the Government itself is to acknowledge the contribution of those who have suffered for the cause of this nation, by granting them pension, in doing so, the Union of India is obviously acting to preserve and propagate the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom. When the policy of the Government itself is to acknowledge the contribution of those who have suffered for the cause of this nation, by granting them pension, in doing so, the Union of India is obviously acting to preserve and propagate the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom. When the Government of India has not taken any policy decision to restrict the benefits of freedom fighters pension, to some persons only with prospective benefits, the action of its officers in giving effect to and implementing the scheme by using the expression "benefit of doubt" it only amounts to introducing a new variety or clause of eligibility altogether to the very scheme. Such an action is wholly impermissible. No new conditionalities can be introduced while giving effect to a policy scheme. 19. What exactly is the standard of proof that is required to be established by the claimants who seek Freedom Fighters Pension, was dealt with by the Supreme Court when it was called upon to do so by a driver of the Indian National Army (I.N.A.) raised by Netaji Subash Chandra Bose, in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India (2001) 8 SCC 8 . Speaking through Justice R.P. Sethi, the Supreme Court has said the following: 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'. 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. 8. We have noticed with disgust that the respondent Authorities have adopted a hyper-technical approach while dealing with the case of a freedom fighter and ignored the basic principles/objectives of the scheme intended to give the benefit to the sufferers in the freedom movement. The contradictions and discrepancies, as noticed hereinabove, cannot be held to be material which could be made the basis of depriving the appellant of his right to get the pension. The case of the appellant has been disposed of by ignoring the mandate of law and the Scheme. The impugned order also appears to have been passed with a biased and close mind completely ignoring the verdict of this Court in Mukund Lai Bhandari's case. We further feel that after granting the pension to the appellant, the respondents were not justified to reject his claim on the basis of material which already existed, justifying the grant of pension in his favour.... 20. Hence, it is beyond any pale of doubt that the standard which the Ministry of Home Affairs can look for, while dealing with cases for sanction of Freedom Fighters Pension must not be proof beyond doubt like in a criminal case. The attempt that should be made is, not to find lacunae or shortcomings in the evidence nor was it proper to examine the record under a huge magnifying glass. The rational approach is to find as to whether the evidence produced by the claimants is a probable one that lends credence to the claim made or not and on that basis the decision should be rested. 21. The reasons must lead the Ministry to a conclusion that the doubt is still persisting in their minds about the role of the claimants or their principals as the case may be, and to avoid a hardship even in such cases, they are interested in extending the "benefit of doubt". 21. The reasons must lead the Ministry to a conclusion that the doubt is still persisting in their minds about the role of the claimants or their principals as the case may be, and to avoid a hardship even in such cases, they are interested in extending the "benefit of doubt". Wherever there is no doubt about the participation of the claimants or their principals in the Liberation Struggle of the Nizam State of Hyderabad, such cases cannot be denied the benefit of pension from the date of the application. It is the reasons which must lead to the conclusion but not the other way about. Reasons must be spelt out on the face of the record. They will be clearly indicating the lines on which the mind was applied. For want of reasons, the conclusion cannot be sustained at all. When a Special Committee has been constituted by the Government of India and it not only comprises of eminent personalities drawn from the society at large but also comprised of high ranking officials drawn from the State Government as well as the Government of India, it can be safely inferred that the Special Committee must have given all the necessary thought before it had arrived at a conclusion to recommend the case of the claimant. If the Special Committee itself had recommended to extend the benefit of doubt, it would be a different matter. When once the aforementioned committee makes a recommendation for granting pension, it presupposes that it had been fully satisfied about the genuineness of the claim and hence the Government of India later on cannot seek to undo what has been done by the Committee. It is no doubt true that, in law, the recommendations or suggestions made by any Committee per force will not be binding upon the Government, but carry the due weight.; Recommendations or suggestions of such committees to be rejected or modified, there should be available far stronger material on basis for doing so. 22. Long since, it was recognized in Indian Judicial System that reasons behind the decision, offer strong foundations for it to rest safely. Reasons are construed as the supply lines of life to any decision and they vibrate the health of the process by which the decision is made. 22. Long since, it was recognized in Indian Judicial System that reasons behind the decision, offer strong foundations for it to rest safely. Reasons are construed as the supply lines of life to any decision and they vibrate the health of the process by which the decision is made. It is only apt to recall the words of Justice Koka Subba Rao (as the learned Chief Justice, then was) in M.P. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1966 Sc 671 . The least a tribunal can do is to disclose its mind. The compulsion of disclosure guarantees consideration. The condition to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimizes arbitrariness; it gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is-made; and it also enables an appellate or supervisory Court to keep the tribunals within bounds. A reasoned order is a desirable condition of judicial disposal. 23. Further, in State of Punjab v. Bagh Singh AIR 2004 SC 1203 , in para 6, this is what has been noted by the Supreme Court: 6. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Uion [1971(1) All ER 1148] observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. V. Crabtree [1974 LCR 120] it was observed : Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice." Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. 24. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. 24. Reasons for conclusions not only bring transparency to the decision making process but implicitly make the decision maker accountable for the same. A reasoned order communicates to the person concerned with necessary clarity as to why the decision, in whole or partly, went against him and brings out the implicit faith in the efficacy and efficiency of the administrative set up of the government. Reasons assure that the material on record has received appropriate attention and consideration. Hence, reasons are required to be set out, at least briefly, as to why a particular course of action is adopted. The gloss to any proceeding is the reason behind it. Sans reason, good faith cannot be assumed, making the ultimate decision vulnerable to attack on that score. The dividing line between an administrative decision and one of quasi judicial act, has almost been obliterated, and hence reasons are called for every decision taken by the administrator or public authority. Elaborate reasoning may not be required but reasons, totally be not dispensed with. Alas! No reasons are forthcoming in this case. 25. In the absence of any material, the routine expression cannot be coined that the Government of India is extending the "benefit of doubt". In my opinion, such mechanical repetition does not have any legal significance or implication to deny the benefit that should flow to all such applicants from the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Mukund Lai Bhandari's case. The Ministry must therefore support its finding of its doubt first of all with reference to reasonable basis and material. In the absence thereof rejecting claims for grant of pension from the date of application would only amount to routine rejections arising out of the improper application of minds. Nay, it conveys a sense of humiliation to the grantee that notwithstanding the suspicion of the participation of the claimant or their principals, the Ministry is sanctioning pension as a matter of grace. Such an attitude, to my mind, is incompatible to the very spirit of the scheme. Nay, it conveys a sense of humiliation to the grantee that notwithstanding the suspicion of the participation of the claimant or their principals, the Ministry is sanctioning pension as a matter of grace. Such an attitude, to my mind, is incompatible to the very spirit of the scheme. Further, grant of pension is no longer liable to be treated as a matter of grace or bounty by a socialistic republic. 26. I am, therefore, convinced that the matter should be reexamined by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, with reference to any material available on record as to whether the doubt which is entertained by it is fair and reasonable or not. Only in case it has reasonable and fair basis for arriving at such a conclusion, the same must be made available in the form of an order. Otherwise, the petitioner shall be sanctioned pension from the date of application instead of from 03.02.2010. Let this exercise be completed on or before 31.12.2011 and the decision taken thereon be communicated to the petitioner. 27. It should not be the anxiety of the State to drive all parties to litigation. The State is under an equal obligation to ensure that the litigation is curbed to the extent feasible and litigation should not be encouraged. The limited infrastructural facilities available to the Courts should not be allowed to be overstretched by the State. Therefore, wherever and whenever any applicant claims reconsideration of the decision taken by it for granting freedom fighters pension, only from the date of sanction but not from the date of application, all such cases should be reconsidered without any necessity for orders from one Court or the other in that regard. 28. This writ petition is allowed, but however without costs.