Back
High Court Of Calcutta
S. B. SINHA
CHAITNYA CHARAN DAS - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. O. 1523 Of 1993
Decided On : 05/16/1995
The Court considered a series of writ petitions filed by several freedom fighters and/or their dependents, challenging the denial of 'samman' pension under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme. The Court examined the scheme and guidelines issued by the Central Government and found that the scheme was intended to confer honor upon eligible freedom fighters and provide financial assistance to them. The Court held that the Central Government had the jurisdiction to frame the scheme and issue guidelines, but it could not act blindly or mechanically on the recommendations of the State Government or the State Advisory Committee. The Court also held that the Central Government was entitled to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the claims of the applicants and could seek further particulars or clarification from the State Government. The Court further held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation could not be invoked in these cases. The Court directed the Central Government and the State Government to consider the applications of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a specified timeframe. The Court also directed the Central Government to release the sanctioned amount of pension to the eligible petitioners with interest. In cases where the Central Government had rejected the claims of the petitioners on the ground of non-availability of records, the Court held that the Central Government could not have lost sight of the fact that records may not be available in many cases. The Court directed the Central Government to reconsider the matter if the petitioners furnished better or further particulars to prove their claims. The Court also held that in cases where the Central Government had suspended the payment of pension without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the impugned orders were liable to be quashed. The Court directed the Central Government to pass an appropriate final order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, freedom fighters and/or their dependents, filed writ petitions challenging the denial of 'samman' pension under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme. The Central Government and the State Government had framed the scheme and issued guidelines for its implementation. The petitioners claimed that they were eligible for the pension and that their applications had been rejected or not processed in a timely manner.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Central Government had the jurisdiction to frame the scheme and issue guidelines, but it could not act blindly or mechanically on the recommendations of the State Government or the State Advisory Committee. The Court also held that the Central Government was entitled to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the claims of the applicants and could seek further particulars or clarification from the State Government. The Court further held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation could not be invoked in these cases.
Issues: 1. Whether the Central Government had the jurisdiction to frame the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme and issue guidelines for its implementation. 2. Whether the Central Government could act blindly or mechanically on the recommendations of the State Government or the State Advisory Committee. 3. Whether the Central Government was entitled to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the claims of the applicants. 4. Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation could be invoked in these cases.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Central Government had the jurisdiction to frame the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme and issue guidelines for its implementation. 2. The Central Government could not act blindly or mechanically on the recommendations of the State Government or the State Advisory Committee. 3. The Central Government was entitled to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the claims of the applicants. 4. The doctrine of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation could not be invoked in these cases.
Final Decision: The Court directed the Central Government and the State Government to consider the applications of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a specified timeframe. The Court also directed the Central Government to release the sanctioned amount of pension to the eligible petitioners with interest. In cases where the Central Government had rejected the claims of the petitioners on the ground of non-availability of records, the Court held that the Central Government could not have lost sight of the fact that records may not be available in many cases. The Court directed the Central Government to reconsider the matter if the petitioners furnished better or further particulars to prove their claims. The Court also held that in cases where the Central Government had suspended the payment of pension without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the impugned orders were liable to be quashed. The Court directed the Central Government to pass an appropriate final order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
( 1 ) THE petitioners in these applications are said to be the freedom fighters and/or their dependents. They have filed these writ applications praying, inter alia, for a direction upon the respondents to pay freedom fighters' pension under 'swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme' (hereinafter referred to as 'scheme') with effect from 1-8-1980.
( 2 ) THE basis fact of the matter is not in dispute.
( 3 ) A scheme was initially made by the Central Government with effect from 15/08/1972 providing for grant of pension to living freedom fighters, and their families, if they are no more alive and to the families of martyrs. The minimum amount of pension payable to the eligible candidate was Rs. 200. 00 per month and in the case of families the sum would vary from Rs. 100. 00 to Rs. 200/per month. However not more than one member of a family was to be granted pension.
( 4 ) THE word 'family' includes mother, father, widower, widow, if he/she has not since remarried, unmarried daughters and sons in exceptional cases, where they were unable to establish themselves in life on account of imprisonment/martyrdom of the said freedom fighters.
( 5 ) IT is not necessary to consider the scope of the said scheme in details.
( 6 ) IN the year 1980 a revised scheme was introduced whereby and whereunder the benefit thereof was extended to all freedom fighters as a token of Samman to them. In the eligibility clause it is stated: who IS ELIGIBLE? for the purpose of grant of Samman pension under the scheme, a freedom fighter is: (a) who had suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the mainland jails before Independence. However, ex-INA personnel will be eligible for pension if the imprisonment/detention suffered by them was outside India. (b) the minimum period of actual imprisonment for eligibility of pension has been reduced to three months, in case of women and SC/st freedom fighters from 1-8-80. EXPLANATION a person who remained underground for more that six months provided he was -1. a proclaimed offender; or 2. one on whom an award for arrest/head was announced; or 3. one for whose detention order was issued but not served. Clause 9 of the said scheme reads thus: - how TO PROVE THE CLAIMS (EVIDENCE REQUIRED) the applicant should furnish the documents indicated below whichever applicable. (a) Imprisonment/detention etc: certificate from the concerned jail authorities, District Magistrates, the State Government. In case of non-availability of such certificates co-pensioner certificates from a sitting M. P. or M. L. A. or from an ex-M. P. or ex-M. L. A. specifying the jail period (Annexure- 'i' in the application form) (b) Remained Underground : (i) Documentary evidence by way of Court's/government order proclaiming the applicant as an offender, announcing an award on his head or for his arrest or ordering his detention. (ii) Certificates from veteran freedom fighters who had themselves undergone imprisonment for five years or more if the official record are not forthcoming due to their non-availability. (Underlining is mine for emphasis) (c) Internment or Externment : (i) Order of internment or externment or any other corroboratory documentary evidence. (ii) Certificates from prominent freedom fighters who had themselves undergone imprisonment for five years or more if the official records are not available (Annexure- 'ii' in the application ). Note : the certifier veteran freedom fighters in respect of underground suffering, internment/externment and the applicant should belong to the same administrative unit before the reorganisation of States and their area of operation must bethe same. (Underlining is mine for emphasis) (d) Loss of Property, Job, etc. : order of confiscation and sale of property. Orders of dismissal or removal from service.
( 7 ) ON or about 12/04/1983 the further guidelines had been issued which are to the following terms :-"the underground suffering recognised for the purpose of pension from
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
