Judgment :

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. Writ Petition (C) NO. 403 OF 2006 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the `Constitution) has been filed by 25 petitioners claiming to be freedom fighters. They make a grievance that they had applied for freedom fighters pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1983 (in short the `Scheme) but there has been denial of the pension without any reason. It is stated that several special screening committees constituted by the State have favourably recommended their cases but nothing concrete has been done and the State Government also has shown little interest in the matter. Similarly in Writ Petition No. 46 of 2006, 32 persons have made similar grievance. In each of these cases, the claim is that the petitioner suffered imprisonment as a part of the freedom fight and therefore is entitled to the pension.

2. Learned counsel for the Union of India and the Government of Andhra Pradesh have filed details and have stated that so far as the Writ Petition No. 403 of 2002 is concerned, after a preliminary verification it was noted that 22 cases were found to be genuine cases and have been recommended. In case of one Sh. Narayana Reddy, it was found that he was under age as on March, 1947 and he was not entitled to any benefit. It was also noted that two others namely Sh. K.J. Shiva Nagaiah and Smt. Gangamma are dead and therefore the question of making any recommendation does not arise. It is stated that on the basis of the orders passed by this Court, 22 persons found to be prima facie genuine are being paid pension with effect from 1.4.2002. This position is accepted by learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. The object of the scheme was highlighted by this Court in Mukundlal Bhandari v. Union of India and Ors. (AIR 1993 SC 2127)

"The object was to honour and where it was necessary also to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country in the hour of its need. In fact, many of those who do not have sufficient income to maintain themselves refuse to take benefit of it since they consider it as an affront to the sense of patriotism with which they plunged in the freedom struggle. The spirit of the scheme being both to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge the valuable sacrifices made, it would be contrary to its spirit to convert it into some kind of a programme of compensation. Yet that may be the result if the benefit is directed to be given retrospectively whatever the date the application is made. The Scheme should retain its high objective with which it was motivated..."

4. Again in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India (2001 AIR SCW 3843) this Court observed as follows:

"It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by the 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...."

5. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in Mukundlals and Gurdial Singhs cases (supra). Genuine freedom fighters deserve to be treated with reverence, respect and honour. But at the same time it cannot be lost sight of that people who had no role to play in the freedom struggle should not be permitted to benefit from the liberal approach required to be adopted in the case of the freedom fighters, most of whom in the normal course are septuagenarians and octogenarians. It baffles one, beyond comprehension, when claim is made by a person who was not even born during the freedom struggle to be a freedom fighter. Accepting claims of such persons to be freedom fighters would be making a mockery of the scheme which is intended for genuine freedom fighters.

6. The above position was highlighted in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralka