Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Ashok Bhushan, A.M. Shaffique, JJ.
Union of India - Appellant
Vs.
Sreedevi Amma - Respondent
W.A. No.1328 of 2014
Decided On : 20-11-2015
Pension Scheme - Date of Entitlement - [Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme] - [Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India ((1993) Supp. 3 SCC 2), Union of India v. Ganesh Chandra Dolai and Others. ((1997) 10 SCC 289), Government of India rep. by the Secretary v. K.V.Swaminathan ((1997) 10 SCC 190), Union of India v. Kaushalaya Devi ((2007) 9 SCC 525), Union of India v. Radhamony (2005 (4) KLT 27), Devaki v. Union of India (2010 (3) KHC 823), Union of India v. Lennyamma (2012 (3) KLT 852), Union of India v. Puthussery Vallyaveettil Thambayi Amma (W.A. No.1910/2011), Union of India v. Elizabeth Sipri (W.A. 1858/2013)] - The court considered various judgments related to the entitlement of pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme and held that the grant of pension should be based on the nature of evidence and the circumstances of each case. The court emphasized that if the grant of pension is based on primary documents, pension should be granted from the date of application, but if it is sanctioned taking a liberal approach by giving the benefit of doubt, pension can be granted from the date of the order. The court also highlighted the importance of verifying the factual situation in each case to determine the entitlement for pension.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petitions involved the entitlement of pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. The petitioners claimed that they were entitled to pension from the date of their application, while the Central Government had granted pension based on various judgments of the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grant of pension should be based on the nature of evidence and the circumstances of each case. It emphasized the importance of verifying the factual situation in each case to determine the entitlement for pension.
Issues: The main issue involved in the appeals was the date on which the petitioners were entitled to pension under the Pension Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the grant of pension should be based on the nature of evidence and the circumstances of each case. It emphasized that if the grant of pension is based on primary documents, pension should be granted from the date of application, but if it is sanctioned taking a liberal approach by giving the benefit of doubt, pension can be granted from the date of the order.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the Union of India were allowed, setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Petitions were dismissed, and the Writ Petitions also stood dismissed.
A.M. Shaffique, J.
These appeals are filed by the petitioners as well as the respondents in the Writ Petitions, which were decided by a common judgment. The issue involved in the appeals relates to the date on which pension is payable to the writ petitioners, under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred as 'Pension Scheme').
2. W.A. Nos.1328, 1411, 1427 and 1466 of 2014 are filed by Union of India, the respondent in the Writ Petitions and W.A. Nos.398, 401, 400 and 423 of 2015 are filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.29090/2011, 25159/2011, 24791/2011 and 24790/2011 challenging judgment dated 10.6.2014 by which the learned Single Judge while partly allowing the Writ Petitions directed the appellants to effect payment of pension from a date three years preceding the date of judgment in each of these
3. The short facts involved in the Writ Petitions would disclose that the application of the petitioners for pension under the Pension Scheme was not processed by the Central Government. Separate Writ Petitions were filed before this Court. Writ Petitions were disposed directing the State Government and its authorities to consider their application and forward their recommendation within a time frame and thereafter Central Government was directed to consider the same within a certain period. Petitioners claimed that their late husbands had undergone detention in the prison during freedom struggle, viz., Kavumbai Struggle and were eligible to get the pension.
4. Pursuant to the judgments in separate cases, the Central Government recommended grant of pension to the petitioners on production of certain documents. Petitioners produced all the required documents and they are in receipt of pension.
5. The contention urged in the Writ Petitions is that the petitioners were entitled to pension from the date of application, i.e., from 1998 itself, whereas pension is sanctioned only from 5.4.2010 in W.P.(C) No.29090/2011, from 14.12.2009 in W.P.(C) No.25159/2011, from 26.5.2010 in W.P.(C) No.24791/2011 and from 9.3.2010 in W.P.(C) No.24790/2011. These were the dates on which the High Court had directed consideration of their claims.
6. In W.P.(C) No.29090/2011, it is contended that the application is submitted in 1998, District Collector recommended the same on 10.5.1999, but claim was rejected on the ground that the certificate produced was relating to imprisonment as an under trial prisoner and there was no imprisonment after conviction. Writ Petition was filed as W.P.(C) No.1467/2010 which was decided on 5.4.2010 directing that the case of under trial prisoners should also be considered for the grant of pension.
7. In W.P.(C) No.25159/2011, it is contended that the application was submitted on 5.4.1998, District Collector recommended the same on 24.5.1999, which was forwarded to Central Government on 15.7.1999, but claim was not processed for 11 years. Writ Petition was filed as W.P.(C) No.35964/2009 which was decided on 14.12.2009 directing that the application should be considered for the grant of pension.
8. In W.P.(C) No.24791/2011, it is contended that the application is submitted in 1998, District Collector recommended the same, but claim was not processed, as the report of State Government was awaited. Writ Petition was filed as W.P.(C) No.4357/2010 which was decided on 26.5.2010 directing that claim of the petitioner has to be considered for the grant of pension.
9. In W.P.(C) No.24790/2011, it is contended that the application is submitted in 1998, District Collector recommended the same on 24.5.1999 and forwarded to State Government, but claim was not considered. Writ Petition was filed as W.P.(C) No.7581/2010 which was decided on 9.3.2010 directing that the claim has to be considered for the grant of pension.
10. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent in W.P.(C) No.29090/2011 inter alia stating that her application was originally rejected by the Central Government. After receipt of the judgme
AI
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
