Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1711 (GAU)

Premoda Bania v. State of Assam

2018-12-07

N.KOTISWAR SINGH

body2018
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. K. Choudhury learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned additional senior Government advocate for State respondents. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for grant of pension under freedom fighters scheme on account of the role played by her husband, namely, Nabin Bania, Village — Bichennala, PO Jamtola, PS Rangia, District — Kamrup (Rural) Assam. 3. The petitioner submits that her husband was a freedom fighter and participated during Quit India Movement 1942 and had suffered various hardships. 4. After her husband died on 13.6.1995, because of lack of knowledge and other information in this regard, the petitioner could not immediately apply for pensionary benefits given to the freedom fighters. However, after knowing of the same, the petitioner submitted an application to the authorities, which was considered by the concerned State’ District Level Committee, and the District Level Committee (DLC) recommended her case for grant of pensionary benefit under the freedom fighter scheme. 5. However, the said recommendation of the DLC was rejected by the State Level Committee only on the ground that she had submitted application after 2014, on the basis of certain decision taken by the State authority in this regard. Accordingly, being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this court. 6. Mr. D. Nath, learned additional senior Government advocate for State respondents submits that Government had already taken a decision to the effect that the Government would not entertain any plea for grant of pension under the freedom fighters pension scheme if the application is submitted after 2014 and accordingly the case of the petitioner could not be considered by the respondent-authorities. 7. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 : AIR 1993 SC 2127 , submits that such rejection by placing a date time is not permissible. It was held in the aforesaid case in para 4 thereof that: “[T]hat the claimants would only be entitled to the benefit of the scheme if they made applications before a particular date notwithstanding that in fact they had suffered the imprisonment and made the sacrifices and were, thus, otherwise qualified to receive the benefit. It was held in the aforesaid case in para 4 thereof that: “[T]hat the claimants would only be entitled to the benefit of the scheme if they made applications before a particular date notwithstanding that in fact they had suffered the imprisonment and made the sacrifices and were, thus, otherwise qualified to receive the benefit. We are, therefore, of the view that whatever the date on which the claimants make the applications, the benefit should be made available to them. The date proscribed in any past or future notice inviting the claims, should be regarded more as a matter of administrative convenience than as a rigid time-limit.” 8. Learned counsel for the State respondent fairly submits that in view of the law laid down in Mukund Lai Bhandari (supra), perhaps the stand of the State Government may not be proper. 9. In view of the above, this court also would take the similar view that late submission of the application cannot be the sole ground for denying any benefit more particularly meant for freedom fighters which is a beneficial scheme and to show gratitude to those who had struggled for the freedom of this Country. Accordingly, the petition is allowed with the direction to the State respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner in light of the recommendation made by the DLC to give pension to the petitioner under the freedom fighters scheme as applied in the State of Assam, which exercise shall be undertaken within a period of two months from today.