Bureaucratic Mindset Criticized: HP High Court Upholds Freedom Fighter's Pension, Orders Govt to Adopt Liberal Approach - 2025-09-03

Legal Awareness & Information.

HP High Court Scolds Govt for 'Bureaucratic Mindset', Upholds Pension for Freedom Fighter's 80-Year-Old Widow

Shimla: The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, in a strongly worded judgment, has dismissed appeals filed by the Union of India and the State of Himachal Pradesh, upholding a single judge's decision to grant pension to the widow of a freedom fighter. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma, castigated the government's "hypertechnical approach" and "deeply engrained bureaucratic mindset" in denying the claim, which was first filed nearly five decades ago.

The court directed the authorities to release the arrears of pension to the widow, Mahanti Devi, within two months, failing which the amount would attract a penal interest of 8% per annum.

Background of the Decades-Long Struggle

The case revolves around a pension claim under the Swatantrata Sainik Pension Scheme, 1980, initiated by freedom fighter Teg Singh. He applied for the pension on August 22, 1975, based on his externment from Bilaspur State from 1946 to 1948 for his participation in the Praja Mandal Movement.

His claim was supported by a certificate from Sant Ram, a respected figure who was the former Home Minister and Superintendent of Police of Bilaspur State. Despite this, and after years of litigation, the Union of India ultimately rejected the claim on April 11, 2007. Teg Singh passed away less than a year later, on January 23, 2008.

His widow, Mahanti Devi, now in her 80s, continued the fight by filing a writ petition. A learned Single Judge allowed her plea on January 2, 2017, directing the grant of pension under both Central and State schemes from January 1, 2012. The present appeals were filed by the Union of India and the State against this order.

Government's Grounds for Rejection

The government had rejected Teg Singh's claim on several technical grounds: * Lack of "acceptable evidence" of externment. * Absence of a valid Non-availability of Records Certificate (NARC). * The certifier, Sant Ram, had not provided evidence of his own suffering during the freedom movement. * A 1996 State Government report was not positive.

High Court's Rebuke and Legal Reasoning

The Division Bench systematically dismantled the government's arguments, emphasizing that schemes for freedom fighters are beneficial legislations requiring a liberal, not a technical, approach.

On Evidentiary Standards: The court held that the certificate from a person of Sant Ram's stature was sufficient "corroboratory documentary evidence" as required by the pension scheme itself. The bench found the rejection of this evidence to be untenable. The judgment noted:

"In our considered opinion, the said certificate itself was sufficient to bring it within the parameters of other corroboratory documentary evidence as per terms of the Scheme itself. The order of rejection has noticed this fact, but rejected the claim only on the ground that Certifier had not furnished any record/evidence of his own duration of suffering..."

Citing Precedents: The bench relied on Supreme Court judgments in Mukand Lal Bhandari Vs. Union of India and Gurdial Singh Versus Union of India , which have consistently held that a presumption should be drawn in favour of the freedom fighter unless rebutted by reliable evidence.

Criticism of Bureaucratic Delay: The court expressed its disapproval of the government's conduct, highlighting the long delay and persistent litigation against a freedom fighter's family. The bench observed:

"The Union of India had gone to reject the claim for the reasons which are not sustainable inspite of law which has time and again reminded them of their obligations... a different bureaucratic mindset is engrained so deep that it is hard for them to shake-off and realise that the benefits they are receiving while holding such offices, are only on account of the fact that the Freedom Fighters are responsible for their State of Affairs at this present point of time."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed both appeals, finding no reason to interfere with the "well-reasoned order" of the Single Judge. The court affirmed that the pension should be paid from January 1, 2012, thereby protecting the government's interest by not granting it from the date of the original application in 1975.

The judgment serves as a powerful reminder to government bodies to approach claims from freedom fighters and their families with the honor and leniency they deserve, rather than obstructing them with procedural hurdles. The court has mandated the payment of all arrears within two months, bringing a long-awaited closure to Mahanti Devi's five-decade-long struggle for recognition and justice.