Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 927 (CAL)

Shiba Prasad Roy v. State of West Bengal

2015-11-26

ARIJIT BANERJEE

body2015
JUDGMENT : Arijit Banerjee, J. In all the three writ petitions, the petitioners challenge a memorandum bearing No. 03 APS dated 15th January, 2013 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Finance Department, whereby a scheme for assistance to political sufferers was directed to be discontinued with effect from 1st February, 2013. Accordingly the three writ petitions were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The petitioner no. 1 in WP No. 17078 (W) of 2013 is the Secretary of the Barasat Unit West Bengal Political Sufferers' Pensioners Welfare Association and the petitioner no. 2 is the Secretary of Jalpaiguri Post Independence Pensioners' Welfare Association. Both are registered associations. The petitioner no. 3 is the President of the Political Sufferers' Pensioners Welfare Society. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the erstwhile State Government having considered the fact that political sufferers who at the cost of their personal careers devoted their lives for the people's cause needs to be looked after by the State as one of its welfare responsibility, introduced a scheme namely Political Sufferers Scheme for Post Democratic Political Sufferers in the year 1988 providing for allowances to political sufferers who participated in the democratic movements of post-independence period. Families of the persons who had lost their lives and persons who had served a minimum jail term of six months and whose annual income was less than Rs. 6,400/- were considered as eligible under the scheme. Amongst them were persons whose family members suffered in the Tebhaga movement, the food movement in 1959, the democratic movements in 1966, the land struggles of the 70's and the struggle against emergency. Many of them are not associated with political parties. All of them are very poor, old and some were very ill. Some of them are literally bedridden. Many of them are Dalits and Adivasis. 4. The said scheme was approved in the 54th meeting of the Cabinet Sub Committee, State of West Bengal. Persons eligible under the said scheme to receive monthly allowance were:- (a) Persons who, as a result of their participation in Freedom Fighting Movements or in the Post-Independence Democratic Movements, have been maimed or disabled. 4. The said scheme was approved in the 54th meeting of the Cabinet Sub Committee, State of West Bengal. Persons eligible under the said scheme to receive monthly allowance were:- (a) Persons who, as a result of their participation in Freedom Fighting Movements or in the Post-Independence Democratic Movements, have been maimed or disabled. (b) Persons who as a result of their participation in Freedom Fighting Movements or in Post-Independence Democratic Movements have suffered imprisonment in jails for a period of not less than six months. (c) The families of the martyr who sacrificed their lives for their participation in the Freedom Fighting Movements or in the Post-Independence Democratic Movements. (d) Persons who lost their jobs or means of livelihood due to their participation in the movements referred to above. (e) The families of political sufferers mentioned in the categories (a), (b) and (c) above. 5. It was specifically mentioned in the said scheme that persons not eligible to apply for monthly allowance under the scheme were:- (a) Those who are receiving Government of India pension either under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme or under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. (b) Whose income from all sources exceed Rs. 6,000/- per annum. 6. On 10th May, 2000, the General Secretary, State of West Bengal issued a memorandum to the Principal Accountant General (A & E), West Bengal stating that the State Government had decided to enhance with effect from 1st April, 2000 the existing monthly allowance from Rs. 750/- to Rs. 900/-, amongst others, to the political sufferers for their participation in the Post Independent Democratic Movement in the State. 7. On 27th March, 2007, the OSD and Ex Officio Social Secretary, Finance Department of the State of West Bengal issued a memorandum sanctioning monthly allowance to the freedom fighters and their dependents who are receiving pension from the Government of India under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, but not receiving allowance from the State Government. 8. On 11th April, 2007, the OSD and Ex officio, Social Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal issued another memorandum recording that the Governor had decided that henceforth the treasuries in the districts will continue the process of payment of lifetime allowance to political sufferers under Assistance to Political Sufferers Scheme and to pensioners under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. 9. 9. On 15th June, 2008, the OSD and Ex Officio, Special Secretary, Government of West Bengal issued a memorandum enhancing the monthly allowance to all the categories of political sufferers and freedom fighters from Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 3250/- with effect from 1st April, 2008. It was further stated that the said amount of Rs. 3250/- shall be inclusive of lifetime monthly allowance/pension already sanctioned by the State Government. 10. On 15th January, 2013 the Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Finance Department, issued a memorandum directing that the political sufferers scheme shall be discontinued with effect from 1st February, 2013. The memorandum is set out herein below:- Dated, Kolkata, the 15th January, 2013 Memorandum The State Government has been considering for some time past the matter relating to continuation of Assistance to Political Sufferers Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme) launched to provide State allowance to the Freedom Fighters and Post Democratic Political Sufferers under the specific terms and conditions; After careful consideration of the matter, the State Government has decided that the said Scheme which has not been in the interest of public in general may be discontinued; Now, the Governor is pleased hereby to direct that the said Scheme shall be discontinued with effect from the 1st Day of February, 2013. Sd/- H.K. Dwivedi Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal Finance Department 11. On the same day that is on 15th January, 2013 another scheme was introduced by the Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Finance Department for providing monthly allowances of the freedom fighters and their dependent family members. In the said memorandum dated 15th January, 2013 it was stated, inter alia, as follows:- MEMORANDUM Subject : Scheme for providing monthly allowance to the freedom fighters under their dependent family members who were receiving such allowance under the Assistance to Political Sufferer Scheme. In view of discontinuation of the Assistance to Political Sufferer Scheme vide Finance Department Memo No. 03 A.P.S dated 15.01.2013 the State Government has been considering introduction of a new Scheme for the freedom fighters and their dependent family members in the following categories who were receiving such allowance under the earlier Scheme as mentioned above to get the same quantum of assistance. (A) Indian National Army (B) Rani Jhansi Regiment (C) Andaman Prisoners (D) Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension 12. (A) Indian National Army (B) Rani Jhansi Regiment (C) Andaman Prisoners (D) Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension 12. In the present writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the memorandum directing discontinuance of the Assistance to Political Sufferers Pension Scheme. 13. Appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Ld. Senior Adv., submitted that the members of the associations which the writ petitioners represent were getting allowances under the said scheme from the State Government and they have no independent source of income. Sudden stoppage of such pension is illegal and arbitrary. He submitted that a decision to discontinue the lifetime financial support to the political sufferers is without any justification and as such cannot be sustained. He submitted that once the State Government decided that political sufferers should be looked after by way of providing financial assistance and accordingly introduced a policy of providing lifetime financial support to the political sufferers, the same created a right in favour of the political sufferers to receive the monthly allowance during their lifetime and such policy can be changed only for good reason. He submitted that the memorandum directing discontinuance of Assistance to The Political Sufferers Scheme does not disclose any reason or justification for sudden change of the Government's policy thereby throwing the recipients of the Government grant in deep sea. He pointed out that the said memorandum merely states that 'the State Government has decided that the said scheme which has not been serving the interest of public in general may be discontinued.' He submitted that the scheme was not introduced for serving the interest of the public in general but for the benefit of a special class of people being the political sufferers who had sacrificed everything in life for the cause of the people. 14. Mr. Bhattacharyya further submitted that a Government cannot cancel or nullify a policy introduced by its predecessor Government according to its sweet will and whim. A policy adopted or a scheme introduced for the benefit of the public or a section thereof must be adhered to irrespective of difference in political ideology of the two Governments. He submitted that the tendency in current times is for a Government to change a policy or scheme just because the same had been adopted or introduced by its rival political party while in power. In this connection Mr. He submitted that the tendency in current times is for a Government to change a policy or scheme just because the same had been adopted or introduced by its rival political party while in power. In this connection Mr. Bhattacharyya relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- (i) State of Haryana v. State of Punjab reported in (2002) 2 SCC 507 . Mr. Bhattacharyya relied on a following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 16 of the Judgment; "16. But at the same time when the political authority becomes dogmatic, unreasonable and indicates an attitude of irresponsible nature and when the court finds that nothing is moving even though there has been a large-scale drainage of public exchequer and that the decision to have the canal had been reached on an agreement of all concerned, representing the will of the people, the Court must pass appropriate orders and directions. What really bothers us most is the functioning of the political parties, who assume power to do whatever that suits them and whatever would catch the vote-bank. They forget for a moment that the constitution conceives of a Government to be manned by the representatives of the people, who get themselves elected in an election. The decisions taken at the governmental level should not be so easily nullified by a change of Government and by some other political party assuming power, particularly when such a decision affects some other State and the interest of the nation as a whole. It cannot be disputed that so far as policy is concerned, a political party assuming power is entitled to engraft the political philosophy behind the party, since that must be held to be the will of the people. But in the matter of governance of a State or in the matter of execution of a decision taken by a previous government, on the basis of a consensus arrived at, which does not involve any political philosophy, the succeeding Government must be held duty bound to continue and carry on the unfinished job rather than putting a stop to the same" (ii) State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers Organization reported in (2006) 4 SCC 683 . Mr. Bhattacharyya relied on paragraph 66 of the said judgment which is as follows:- "66. Mr. Bhattacharyya relied on paragraph 66 of the said judgment which is as follows:- "66. Taking an overall view of the matter, it appears that there could hardly be a dispute that the Project is a mega project which is in the larger public interest of the State of Karnataka and merely because there was a change in the Government, there was no necessity for reviewing all decisions taken by the previous Government, which is what appears to have happened. That such an action cannot be taken every time there is a change of Government has been clearly laid down in State of U.P. v. Johri Maland in State of Haryana v. State of Punjab where this court observed thus: "in the matter of governance of a State or in the matter of execution of a decision taken by a previous Government, on the basis of a consensus arrived at, which does not involve any political philosophy, the succeeding Government must be held duty-bound to continue and carry on the unfinished job rather than putting a stop to the same." (iii) State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder reported in (2011) 8 SCC 737 . In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at paragraph 31 of the judgment that the Government as to rise above the nexus of vested interests and nepotism and eschew window-dressing. It referred to the dicta of the Supreme Court in the case of Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India reported in (2003) 2 SCC 673 , to the effect that the principles of governance have to be tested on the touchstone of justice, equity and fair play and if a decision is not based on justice, equity and fair play and has taken into consideration other matters, though on the face of it, the decision may look legitimate but as a matter of fact the reasons are not based on values but to achieve popular accolade, that decision cannot be allowed to operate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that unless it is found that an act done by the authority earlier in existence is either contrary to statutory provisions, is unreasonable, or is against public interest, the State should not change its stand merely because the other political party has come into power. Political agenda of an individual or a political party should not be subversive of the rule of law. Political agenda of an individual or a political party should not be subversive of the rule of law. (iv) Andhra Pradesh Diary Development Corporation Federation v. B. Narasimha Reddy reported in (2011) 9 SCC 286 . In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at paragraph 40 of the judgment that in the matter of the governance of a State the succeeding Government is duty-bound to continue and carry on the unfinished job of the previous Government since the action is that of the 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, which continues to subsist and, therefore, the new Government should not plead contrary to the State action taken by the previous Government in respect of a particular subject. The State, being a continuing body, can be estopped from changing its stand in a given case, but where after holding inquiry it came to the conclusion that the earlier action was not in conformity with law, the doctrine of estoppel would not apply. Thus, unless the act done by the previous Government is found to be contrary to the statutory provisions, unreasonable or against policy, the State should not change its stand merely because another political party has come into power. The political agenda of an individual or a political party should not be subversive of rule of law. The Government has to rise above the nexus of vested interest and nepotism, etc as the principles of governance have to be decided on the touchstone of justice, equity and fair play. 15. Relying on the aforesaid decisions Mr. Bhattacharyya submitted that the decision of the present Government to discontinue the Assistance to Political Sufferers Scheme is arbitrary and motivated causing grave prejudice to all those persons who received monthly allowance under the said scheme. Mr. Bhattacharyya invited this court to quash the memorandum impugned in these writ petitions. 16. Appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal, Mr. Tapan Mukherjee, Ld. Counsel submitted that the State had framed the said scheme for providing financial support to political sufferers under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that if the State introduces a scheme it cannot be said that the State is bound to implement the same for all times to come or that it has no power to discontinue the scheme. He submitted that if the State introduces a scheme it cannot be said that the State is bound to implement the same for all times to come or that it has no power to discontinue the scheme. The recipients of monthly allowances under the said scheme have no vested right to receive such allowance. It was a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Government to introduce such a scheme and nothing can stop the Government from withdrawing the scheme if it finds that the same is not serving its purpose. He submitted that the decision to discontinue the said scheme was a policy decision which is not open to challenge before a writ court. He submitted that the decision of the Government as communicated by the memorandum impugned in the present writ application is a bona fide decision taken in public interest and the same does not warrant any interference. 17. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. 18. The Government of West Bengal had introduced as a policy decision the scheme for providing lifetime financial support to the political sufferers. This was obviously in recognition of the immense sacrifice made by them to achieve a better future for the country and its people. They sacrificed their personal interest and the comfort of a secured and cushioned life to usher in a better tomorrow for the generations to come. They did not aspire for a lavish life or to accumulate wealth or achieve high positions in the society. They did not look for name and fame. They fought for what they believed would result in improvement of the general scenario in the country and in the quality of life of the people in general. Their motive was completely unselfish. 19. Most of such political sufferers are unsung heroes. A large majority of them live in penury, unable to meet the basic needs of life. Generally speaking, they are all elderly people and many of them suffer from chronic and debilitating ailments without being able to undergo proper medical treatment for lack of money. Having sacrificed the best part of their lives for the sake of the country and its people, towards end of their lives they deserve to be looked after and nurtured by the State which takes pride in calling itself a welfare State. Having sacrificed the best part of their lives for the sake of the country and its people, towards end of their lives they deserve to be looked after and nurtured by the State which takes pride in calling itself a welfare State. Introduction of the said scheme for providing monthly allowance to such political sufferers for their lifetime was surely a very welcome and laudable act on the part of the State Government. 20. From time to time, the quantum of monthly allowance under the said scheme was reviewed and enhanced. While it cannot be said that the beneficiaries under the said scheme had a legal right to receive such benefit, the State Government surely had and continues to have a moral obligation to provide financial assistance to these persons so that they can afford the basic necessities of life and live with minimum dignity. Corresponding to such moral obligation of the state, these persons can surely be said to have a right to receive the benefit which the State decided to confer on them. Such right cannot be easily or lightly taken away. Most of these persons and many of their families are wholly dependent on the monthly allowance that they received under the said scheme. Stoppage of such allowance would spell disaster and complete ruination for these persons. Law is not a mechanical set of Rules or Codes shorn of moral or humanitarian values. Laws are enacted to ensure that the society functions in a disciplined manner and to protect the basic rights of the members of the society. 21. This is not to say that once a Government adopts a policy or introduces a scheme for the benefit of a section of the members of the society, the Government cannot review or modify or amend or even withdraw such scheme. However, there should be cogent reasons for withdrawal of such benefit and the decision of the Government communicating such withdrawal of benefit should reveal on the face of it valid reasons. I am not unconscious of the settled position that a policy decision is generally not amenable to judicial review excepting where it contravenes a constitutional provision or is in breach of some statutory provision. I am not unconscious of the settled position that a policy decision is generally not amenable to judicial review excepting where it contravenes a constitutional provision or is in breach of some statutory provision. However, a change in policy which has the effect of depriving a section of the society of a benefit that an earlier policy had conferred on them, must be rational and must not be arbitrary, capricious or whimsical. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the Constitution of India which is the father of all laws, confers on all citizens of the country a right to live with dignity. 22. I am also of the view that introduction of the said scheme and continuance thereof with enhancement of the quantum of monthly allowance from time to time give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the beneficiaries of the scheme that they would continue to receive the benefit for their lifetime. They could legitimately expect that the monthly financial assistance that the State Government introduced in their favour and on which depends their survivor, would not be withdrawn unless there were compelling reasons and justification therefor. 23. In Halsbury's Law of England, Vol. 1 (1), 4th Ed., at para 81 it is stated that a person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The existence of a legitimate expectation may have a number of different consequences. It may give locus standi to seek leave to apply for judicial review; or it may mean that the authority ought not to act so as to defeat the expectation without some overriding reason of public policy to justify its doing so; or it may mean that if the authority proposes to defeat a person's legitimate expectation, it must afford him an opportunity to make representations on the matter. Legitimate expectation may arise if there is an express promise given by a public authority or because of the existence of a regular practise which the claimant can reasonably expect to continue. In Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service reported in (1984) 3 All. Legitimate expectation may arise if there is an express promise given by a public authority or because of the existence of a regular practise which the claimant can reasonably expect to continue. In Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service reported in (1984) 3 All. E.R. 935, the House of Lords observed that even where a person claiming some benefit or privilege has no legal right to it, as a matter of private law, he may have a legitimate expectation of receiving the benefit or the privilege, and if so, the courts will protect his expectation by judicial review as a matter of public law. 24. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has now been recognised by the law of the land. In Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in (2005) 1 SCC 625 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a person may have a 'legitimate expectation' of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. The expectation may arise either from a representation or promise made by the authority, including an implied representation, or from consistent past practise. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has an important place in the developing law of judicial review. Legitimate expectation can provide a sufficient interest to enable one who cannot point to the existence of a substantive right to obtain the leave of the court to apply for judicial review. It is generally agreed that legitimate expectation gives the applicant sufficient locus standi for judicial review and that the doctrine is to be confined mostly to the right of a fair hearing before a decision which results in negativing a promise or withdrawing an undertaking. The doctrine does not give the scope to claim relief straightaway from the administrative authorities as no crystallized right as such is involved. The protection of such legitimate expectation does not require the fulfilment of the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words, where a person's legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a particular decision, then the decision-maker should justify the denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public interest. The protection of such legitimate expectation does not require the fulfilment of the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words, where a person's legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a particular decision, then the decision-maker should justify the denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public interest. In the case referred to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that while the decision to change a policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or for any other ulterior motive. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every state action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. 25. In the case of M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of MP reported in (1997) 7 SCC 592 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the doctrine of legitimate expectation has been judicially recognised by the Apex Court in a number of decisions. The doctrine operates in the domain of public law and in appropriate case, constitutes a substantive and enforceable right. 26. In Madras City Wine Merchants Association v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1994) 5 SCC 509 , the Hon'ble Supreme court observed that in the public law field, individuals may not have strictly enforceable rights but they may have legitimate expectations. Such expectations may stem either from a promise or a representation made by a public body, or from a previous practise of a public body. The promise of a hearing before a decision is taken may give rise to a legitimate expectation that a hearing will be given. The past practise of consulting before a decision is taken may give rise to an expectation of consultation before any future decision is taken. A promise to confer, or past practise of conferring a substantive benefit, may give rise to an expectation that the individual will be given a hearing before a decision is taken not to confer the benefit. The past practise of consulting before a decision is taken may give rise to an expectation of consultation before any future decision is taken. A promise to confer, or past practise of conferring a substantive benefit, may give rise to an expectation that the individual will be given a hearing before a decision is taken not to confer the benefit. The actual enjoyment of a benefit may create a legitimate expectation that the benefit will not be removed without the individual being given a hearing. Decisions affecting such legitimate expectations are subject to judicial review. In the case of Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Association v. Union of India reported in (2006) 8 SCC 399 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the doctrine has an important place in the development of administrative law and particularly law relating to judicial review. Under the said doctrine a person may have reasonable or legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no right in law to receive the benefit. In such a situation, if a decision is taken by an administrative authority adversely affecting his interests, he may have justifiable grievance in the light of the fact of continuous receipt of the benefit and legitimate expectation to receive the benefit or privilege which he has enjoyed all throughout. Such expectation may arise either from an express promise or from consistent practise which the claimant may reasonably expect to continue. 27. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the doctrine can be invoked if the decisions of the administrative authority affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there have been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or when he has received assurance from the decision maker that the benefit will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn. 28. In the case of Food Corporation of India v. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries reported in (1993) 1 SCC 7 (cited by Ld. 28. In the case of Food Corporation of India v. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries reported in (1993) 1 SCC 7 (cited by Ld. Counsel for the State), at paragraph 8 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and that is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision-making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever, the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. 29. Ld. Counsel for the State relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Buildings Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan reported in (1998) 7 SCC 66 in support of his submission that if there is no pleading of legitimate expectation in the writ petition, the petition cannot be allowed only on that ground. At paragraph 31 of the judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- "31. Incidentally in this case, the question of 'legitimate expectation' was not raised in the petition and no foundation was laid in the pleadings for such a plea being advanced before the Court. Strangely, the High Court allowed this plea at the stage of argument and allowed the petitions only on the ground of 'legitimate expectation' without in the least realising that there was hardly any legitimacy in the claim of the respondents. In the absence of pleading and the affidavit of the respondents in support thereof, the whole exercise done by the High Court cannot but be termed to be speculative." 30. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the instant case, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to contend that they have a legitimate expectation to continue to receive the benefit under the lifetime assistance scheme. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the instant case, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to contend that they have a legitimate expectation to continue to receive the benefit under the lifetime assistance scheme. This would not mean that the Government can under no circumstances withdraw the scheme and must provide the monthly allowance to the political sufferer for all times to come. It only means that prior to withdrawal of the benefit, the petitioners should be informed the reasons for which the Government proposes to withdraw such benefit and the petitioners should be given a hearing on the matter. 31. It is true that in the writ petitions before me the petitioners have not specifically pleaded the doctrine of legitimate expectation. However, the rules of pleadings have been laid down to ensure that a party to the proceeding is not taken by surprise at the time of arguments. A point which has not been raised in the pleadings can still be allowed to be agitated by a party at the time of argument if the same is a point of law and based on the facts on record and for which no additional facts are required to be brought on record. In the present case, the only material fact is that the petitioners enjoyed the lifetime pension scheme continuously for a considerable period of time along with enhancement of quantum of pension from time to time. This is the factual basis which, in my opinion, gives rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the petitioners that the policy would not be changed and the benefit would not be withdrawn without disclosing cogent reasons and justification therefor. The state respondents were given full opportunity to make submission on the issue of legitimate expectation. 32. In any event, the present judgment and order is not based only on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The primary bases of the judgment is that the impugned memo does not disclose as to why and in what manner the scheme did not serve the interest of the public in general. 32. In any event, the present judgment and order is not based only on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The primary bases of the judgment is that the impugned memo does not disclose as to why and in what manner the scheme did not serve the interest of the public in general. A change in policy decision which has the effect of withdrawing the benefit from the citizens of the country may not be interfered with if such change of policy decision is justified and such decision must be manifested in the form of cogent reasons showing that such change of policy was necessary in greater public interest. But that does not appear to be the case here. 33. The memo impugned in the writ petition cryptically states that the State Government has decided that the said scheme has not been serving the interest of public in general and may be discontinued. Firstly, no reason has been recorded or disclosed as to what prompted the Government to come to a decision that the said scheme was not serving the interest of the public in general. Secondly the said scheme was not for the benefit of the public in general. The scheme was introduced for the benefit of a special section of the public to whom all the other members of the public should be grateful for their selfless and relentless fight to achieve a better future for the country and its people. As the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder (supra), unless it is found that a decision of the earlier Government is contrary to statutory provisions or is unreasonable or is against public interest, the State should not change its stand merely because another political party has come into power. Political agenda of an individual or a political party should not be subversive of the rule of law. 34. For the reasons afore stated, I am of the view that the memorandum dated 15th January, 2013 impugned in these writ petitions cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is quashed. The State Government is directed to reconsider the issue of discontinuance of the said scheme for providing assistance to political sufferers and come to a reasoned and informed decision. It is expected that the State Government will consider the cause of the political sufferers sympathetically. 35. The State Government is directed to reconsider the issue of discontinuance of the said scheme for providing assistance to political sufferers and come to a reasoned and informed decision. It is expected that the State Government will consider the cause of the political sufferers sympathetically. 35. Since the impugned notification stands quashed, needless to mention that the scheme for providing assistance to political suffers revives and the beneficiaries of that scheme will be entitled to receive the monthly allowance thereunder with effect from 1st February, 2013, till the scheme is in subsistence and until the same is discontinued by a legally valid order justifying such discontinuance. 36. WP No. 17078 (W) of 2013, WP No. 17080 (W) of 2013 and WP No. 13754 (W) of 2014 are accordingly disposed of. There will be however no order as to costs. Certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.