1. Application under Article 32 seeking pension benefits under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme for participation in the Arya Samaj movement. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1991 Supreme(SC) 481
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranganath Misra, CJI., P.B.Sawant, J.
Surja
Versus
Union Of India
Case No., 75 of 1991
Date of Decision, 9/13/91
Advocates Appeared: Pal R.P.Singh, Ramaswamy G., Srivastava A.K., Subhashini A.
Advocates:
A.K.SRIVASTAVA, A.Subhashini, G.RAMASVAMY, R.P.SINGH PAL
A.K.SRIVASTAVA, A.Subhashini, G.RAMASVAMY, R.P.SINGH PAL
Persons sentenced to at least six months of imprisonment for participation in the freedom struggle remain eligible for the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme even if they were released earlier due to a general amnesty or remission.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 - Eligibility for pension - Minimum imprisonment of six months - Effect of general amnesty - Petitioners convicted and sentenced to imprisonment exceeding six months for participation in a movement equated with the freedom struggle - Released early due to general amnesty declared by the then ruler - It is held that if a person was convicted and ordered to suffer imprisonment for a period beyond six months, the fact that remission was granted and they were released earlier does not deprive them of the right to earn the pension benefit. (Paras 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
A group of persons claiming benefits under a pension scheme for freedom fighters asserted that they had participated in a movement in a princely state and were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, mostly around two years. While undergoing their sentences, a general amnesty was declared by the ruler, and they were set free. The government disputed their entitlement to the pension, despite accepting that the movement in question was part of the freedom struggle.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners had produced material showing they were sentenced to imprisonment for terms exceeding six months. The court accepted the construction that the entitlement is based on the sentence ordered, and subsequent remission does not negate this right.
Issues: Whether persons sentenced to more than six months of imprisonment who were released early due to a general amnesty are eligible for the benefits of the pension scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the condition for earning the pension benefit is satisfied if the person was convicted and ordered to suffer imprisonment for at least six months; the subsequent grant of remission or amnesty does not take away the right to the pension.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claim entitlement based on imprisonment for the Arya Samaj movement; respondents dispute the factual entitlement of most petitioners. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. The court found that petitioners were sentenced to over six months but were released early due to a general amnesty. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Eligibility for pension is earned upon conviction and sentencing to six months or more; subsequent remission or amnesty does not negate this right. (Para 7 )
5. Petition allowed; respondents directed to admit petitioners to the pension scheme. (Para 8 )
6. Does participation in the Arya Samaj movement qualify for the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme?
Yes, the Union of India has accepted the Arya Samaj movement as part of the freedom struggle, and participants who suffered the minimum required imprisonment are eligible. (Para 3 , 5 )
7. Does a general amnesty or remission of sentence affect eligibility for the freedom fighter's pension if the original sentence was for six months or more?
No. If a person was convicted and ordered to suffer imprisonment for six months or more, the fact that they were released earlier due to a general amnesty or remission does not take away their right to earn the pension. (Para 7 )
JUDGMENT
RANGANATH MISRA, C.J.I.
(1) THIS is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution by 55 persons - both men and women - claiming the benefit of the scheme of pension for Freedom Fighters.
(2) IT is the common contention of the petitioners that they had joined the Arya Samaj movement in the late 1930s within the erstwhile Nizams State of Hyderabad and each of them had been convicted under different provisions of the criminal law then prevailing within the Nizams State and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. In the case of most of them the term of imprisonment was around two years. They maintained that the Arya Samaj movement has been equated with the freedom struggle and the benefit of the pension scheme is admissible to those who had participated in the movement as Arya Samajists. According to them, in the prime of youth the petitioners had been motivated by the call of Mahatma Gandhi,the Father of the Nation and leaders like the late Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr Rajendra Prasad and others and bad given up their home and hearth and had joined the agitation within the Nizams State and suffered the consequences. Since their claim for pension had not been accepted by the government of India they have applied to this court for appropriate direction for being admitted to the benefits of the scheme.
(3) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents by Undersecretary Alam in the Ministry of Home Affairs who while not disputing the assertion of the petitioners that the Union of India had accepted the Arya Samaj movement to be a part of the freedom struggle has disputed the entitlement of pension in the case, of most of the petitioners.
(4) PETITIONERS have relied upon the decision of this court dated 16/07/1991, in Writ Petition No. 1190 of 1989 ( Duli Chand v. Union of India ) where similar relief claimed by 41 persons had been accepted. That case, according to the counter-affidavit, was disposed of ex: parte and by accepting all the allegations of the petitioners therein. In view of the dispute now raised in the counter-affidavit, particularly with reference to the factual aspects, we do not think it would be appropriate to dispose of the present petition by adopting the order of this court in the said writ petition.
(5) IT is the accepted position that if petitioners suffered the minimum sentence of six months of imprisonment on. account of their participation in the Arya Samaj movement they would be entitled to pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. .The question for examination, therefore, is whether petitioners did suffer such sentence
(6) AS we have already mentioned most of the petitioners have produced material to show that they had participated as alleged and were sentenced to imprisonment for terms exceeding ,six months. While they were undergoing sentence, without their praying for any remission, a general amnesty was declared by the then Nizam on his birthday and the sentence was reduced and the petitioners were set free.
(7) FREEDOM Fighters Pension Scheme of 1972 was renamed as "Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980". The brochure published by the Union of India indicates: "A person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment for six months in the mainland jails before independence in the struggle for independence is eligible to be admitted to the benefits of the pension." It has already been indicated that each of the petitioners had been convicted and was ordered to suffer imprisonment of more than six months. The petitioners assertion that they did not claim remission has not been doubted or disputed. In the facts of the case it would be appropriate to hold that each of the petitioners satisfied the condition for earning the benefit of pension and the fact that while undergoing sentence which was for a period beyond six months remission had been granted and they were let off earlier would not take away their righ
