Pension schemes categorized as benevolent legislation are not absolute rights; they are subject to strict eligibility conditions and prescribed timelines. Failure to comply with these parameters or to challenge administrative rejections in a timely manner renders claims for benefits unsustainable.

Judgment :

Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court on October 4, 2023, refusing the prayer of the appellant for grant of pension of her late father, a freedom fighter under the Freedom Fighter’s Pension Scheme, 1972 which was later modified as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal are brief and not in dispute:

i. The father of the appellant, Krishna Pada Bera, had participated in the Quit India Movement in 1942 and had been imprisoned for a period of 6 months for such participation.

ii. After independence, the Freedom Fighter’s Pension Scheme, 1972 was promulgated and the said Krishna Pada Bera applied and was granted pension of Rs. 150/- per month which was later enhanced to Rs. 200/- per month on February 18, 1996. Krishna Pada Bera passed away leaving behind several sons and daughters.

iii. The appellant filed an application for grant of pension with the authorities sometime in 2007 after the expiry of 11 years from the date of death of Krishna Pada Bera. She alone was entitled to the pension, being an unmarried daughter, dependant on her father.

iv. Between June and July 2007, the appellant had made multiple representations, which were not considered. This prompted the appellant to file a writ petition being WPA No. 2991 of 2009.

v. The said writ petition was disposed of, directing the authorities concerned to consider the case of the appellant on the basis of her representation, within a period of six months. The said representation was considered and rejected on August 7, 2012.

vi. The appellant made a fresh representation on December 13, 2016, which was considered and rejected on January 9, 2017, in line with the rejection of August 7, 2012. The rejections were not challenged by the appellant and it was only after a lapse of more than 5 years from the second rejection, that the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court with a second writ petition being WPA No. 19043 of 2023.

vii. This writ petition was dismissed by the impugned order of October 4, 2023, which is assailed before us.

3. Mr. Ramdulal Manna, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, has raised the following issues:

a. The appellant is entitled to the pension which was being paid to her father till his death in 1996. The appellant being the only unmarried daughter is entitled to such pension.

b. There was no time constraint for making an application for pension in the original scheme of 1972 or in the modified scheme of 1981.

c. Timelines were introduced only in 2014, vide office memorandum 45/03/2014-FF(P) dated August 6, 2014.

d. The pension scheme being a beneficial legislation cannot be constricted by introduction of definite timelines. Hence this portion of the modified scheme of 2014 is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

e. He has placed reliance on several decisions, enumerated as under: Alaka Bera @ Aloka Bera vs. Union of India and Ors., WPA 7071 of 2023; Kanchan Barman vs. Union of India and Others, WPA