1. Claim for pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme — Initial rejection — Subsequent fresh application with variance in facts — Writ petition for mandamus. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 23 , 24 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 99
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.
Union of India – Applicant
Versus
A. Alagam Perumal Kone & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.680 Of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5343 of 2019)
Decided On : 22-02-2021
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): B. V. Balaram Das, AOR
For the Respondent(s):Divyanshu Srivastav, Garima Bajaj, Nikhil Bamal, Advocates
For the Petitioner(s): B. V. Balaram Das, AOR
For the Respondent(s):Divyanshu Srivastav, Garima Bajaj, Nikhil Bamal, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Whether a particular applicant is entitled for pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme of 1980, is a matter which is required to be considered having regard to facts and documentary evidence produced in each case.
(2) When claim is under a particular scheme, unless one fulfills eligibility criteria for grant of pension, as mentioned in scheme, no applicant can claim such pensions, as a matter of right.
Headnote:
Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1908 – Grant of freedom fighter’s pension – It is case of appellant that documentary evidence filed by 1st Respondent is not in compliance of scheme – It is a matter which is to be left to competent authority to consider – When application of 1st Respondent is already rejected in year 1997, when such rejection order has become final, it is not open for 1st Respondent to make a claim for second time for pension again by way of fresh application – 1st Respondent would be entitled to benefits of this scheme, if he produces relevant material in support of his claim – As regards sufficiency of proof, scheme itself mentions documents which are required to be produced along with application – Whether claimant fulfills criteria or not, it is for competent authority to examine it – Whether a particular applicant is entitled for pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme of 1980, is a matter which is required to be considered having regard to facts and documentary evidence produced in each case – 1st Respondent has to furnish required proof as contemplated under the scheme – When claim is under a particular scheme, unless one fulfills eligibility criteria for grant of pension, as mentioned in scheme, no applicant can claim such pensions, as a matter of right – Impugned judgment set aside and Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 25, 26, 30, 31 and 32)
Facts of the case:
By Order dated 26.10.2017, passed in W.P.(MD) No.17290 of 2017, filed by 1st Respondent herein, while disposing of the writ petition, directions were issued to the appellant herein, to grant Freedom Fighter’s Pension to 1st Respondent under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme and pass suitable orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Aggrieved by order of Single Judge, appellant herein, preferred writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent and the same is dismissed by the impugned order.
Findings of Court:
Appellant stands on a better footing, for the reason that although the application made by 1st Respondent on 10.04.1997 was rejected and the said order has become final, he again approached the appellant with the same request. Even before the Competent Authority considers application, 1st Respondent approached High Court by filing Writ Petition and the High Court, not only entertained the petition, but disposed of the same without even notice and opportunity of filing counter affidavit to the appellant.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Judgement Key Points
Based on the legal document provided, the order is as follows:
The appellate court has allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India and has set aside the judgment of the High Court that had directed the grant of pension to the respondent. The court has found that the respondent's claim for pension under the scheme of 1980 was not supported by the requisite documentary evidence and that the earlier rejection of his application had become final. The court emphasized that eligibility for pension under the scheme depends on fulfilling the specified criteria and producing the necessary proof, which is a matter for the competent authority to consider. Since the respondent's claim was made after a previous final rejection and without proper supporting documents, and because the High Court disposed of the petition without providing an opportunity for the appellant to present a counter, the order of the High Court was deemed improper.
Consequently, the court dismissed the respondent's writ petition, upheld the appeal, and clarified that each case's entitlement to pension must be determined based on the facts and documentary evidence produced, and not solely on judicial directions. The overall decision underscores that pension claims under such schemes are subject to strict adherence to the eligibility criteria and procedural requirements, and that judicial review should respect the authority of the competent bodies to assess such claims.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant: High Court erred in granting pension without notice or verification of scheme conditions. Respondent: Entitled to pension based on participation in freedom struggle. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
3. High Court failed to issue notice or allow counter-affidavit; claimant failed to disclose prior final rejection; variance in factual claims between applications. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 31 )
4. Pension under a specific scheme requires strict compliance with eligibility criteria and documentary proof; judicial review cannot bypass the competent authority's verification process. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 30 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Writ petition dismissed. (Para 32 )
6. Can a court grant pension under a specific scheme without the competent authority verifying eligibility?
No. When a scheme prescribes specific conditions and documentary evidence for pension, the competent authority must examine compliance. Courts exercising judicial review should not issue positive directions for grant of pension before such examination. (Para 16 , 25 )
7. What is the effect of a final rejection of a pension claim under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme?
Once a claim is considered and rejected by the competent authority and the order becomes final, the claimant cannot simply make a fresh claim for the same pension without addressing the prior finality. (Para 24 , 25 )
8. How should courts handle writ petitions where serious factual disputes regarding eligibility for a government scheme exist?
Where serious factual disputes emerge, the High Court should not dispose of the petition without issuing notice and providing the respondent an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit to rebut allegations. (Para 26 )
9. Is the production of documents as prescribed by the pension scheme mandatory for the grant of benefits?
Yes. Pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme can be sanctioned only as per the proof required under the scheme and in no other manner. (Para 27 , 30 )
JUDGMENT :
R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the Union of India, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.08.2018 passed in W.A.(MD) NO. 907 of 2018 by Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), whereby, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed confirming the order of the learned Single Judge, passed in W.P.(MD) NO. 17290 of 2017.
3. By Order dated 26.10.2017, passed in W.P.(MD) No.17290 of 2017, filed by the 1st Respondent herein, while disposing of the writ petition, directions were issued to the appellant herein, to grant Freedom Fighter’s Pension to the 1st Respondent under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme and pass suitable orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant herein, preferred writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and the same is dismissed by the impugned order.
5. The Respondent No.1 herein, has submitted his first application for grant of pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme on 10.04.1997, which was forwarded by the 2nd Respondent through 3rd Respondent. In the said communication, which was received by the appellant on 26.07.2001, it was observed that the application was not properly filled up and the certificate issued by one of the certifiers was vague. Non-Availability of Records Certificate (NARC) was not produced from the competent authority, as per the scheme. In absence of any categorical recommendation made by the 2nd Respondent, the application made by the 1st Respondent, at first instance, on 10.04.1997, was rejected by the appellant vide its letter dated 27.02.2004. Thereafter, for about a period of 13 years, no steps have been taken by the 1st Respondent and on 29.08.2017, he again sent a communication to the appellant herein, for grant of pension from 2011 under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, stating that he was imprisoned for more than six months from 05.01.1944 to 05.07.1944 during Quit India Movement.
6. It is the case of the appellant that as the said communication was not supported by any documents, the appellant herein, sent a letter dated 27.10.2017 which is addressed to the 2nd Respondent with a copy to the 1st Respondent to send the claim application by completing all the required formalities as per Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. At that stage, the 1st Respondent herein, has filed the Writ Petition before Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), seeking directions by way of mandamus to direct the appellant herein, to grant Freedom Fighter’s Pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme.
7. It is the case of the appellant that writ petition was heard and disposed of by order dated 26.10.2017, without issuing a notice and without giving any opportunity to file counter affidavit to rebut the allegations, made in the petition.
8. Learned Single Judge, referring to certain communications made by the 1st Respondent, by recording a finding that the certificate issued by an approved certifier is sufficient for grant of pension, has disposed of the petition by directing the appellant to grant pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme and to pass suitable orders, in respect thereof.
9. It is the case of the appellant that even in the appeal, though specific grounds are raised before the Division Bench, inter alia, stating that no notice was issued in the writ petition; the application by the 1st Respondent for grant of freedom fighters’ pension was not supported by required documents; and non-disclosure of the rejection of the first application for grant of pension, the High Court has dismissed the appeal without assigning valid reasons and without considering any of the grounds raised in the appeal.
10. Before this Court, the counter affidavit is filed by the 1st Respondent. While denying various allegations made by the appellant, it is stated that as the appellant has not complied with the directions issue
