Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2477
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Sobh Singh S/o Shri Bheem Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7071 of 2025
Decided On : 26-11-2025
For the Appellant : Himanshu Bumb
For the Respondents: Praveen Khandelwal, Yashvi Khandelwal
Detainment under the Rajasthan MISA for political reasons entitles the individual to pension benefits, irrespective of unrelated criminal cases.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan MISA and DIR Prisoners Pension Rules, 2008 - Rules 11 and 14 - Writ petition challenging orders regarding pension benefits - Petitioner eligible for pension under the Rules based on lawful detention during Emergency - Rejection of claim due to unrelated criminal cases held arbitrary and unlawful. (Paras 21)
(B) The laws mandate that pension benefits are exclusively for those detained for political or social reasons, not for persons with criminal records. (Paras 16 and 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was detained under MISA from 09.07.1975 to 25.02.1976 as per the certificate dated 16.06.2008, but his claim for pension was denied due to six unrelated criminal cases.
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged the petitioner’s correct detention status and ruled against the arbitrary rejection of his pension claim based on prior unrelated criminal conduct.
Issues: The primary issues included the validity of denying pension benefits based on criminal antecedents and the interpretation of eligibility rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner’s prior criminal record, unrelated to his confinement period, should not affect his eligibility for benefits established for those unlawfully detained for political reasons.
Result: Writ petition allowed; orders rejecting pension benefits quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prayers of the petitioner. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's eligibility for pension benefits. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. arguments regarding criminal antecedents. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. respondent's justification for denial of benefits. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. necessity for fresh proceedings. (Para 10) |
| 6. court's finding on legality of rejection. (Para 11 , 12 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. explanation of pension eligibility rules. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 8. legal framework of the misa act. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 9. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 22 , 23) |
ORDER :
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
“A. The impugned orders dated 01.10.2014 (Ann.5) passed by the Collector, Barmer (Respondent no. 3) and order dated 26.12.2017 (Ann. 11) passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent no. 2), may kindly be quashed and set aside.
B. That the application of the petitioner for getting Pension and Medical allowance under the Rules of 2008 may kindly be allowed with all consequential benefits granted to the similarly situated persons.
C. Arrears of Pension along with interest @ 12% Per annum may also directed to be paid to the petitioner.
D. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of petitioner.
E. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which is in favour of petitioner found by Hon'ble Court, may kindly be passed.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was detained in jail for the period 09.07.1975 to 25.02.1976, as evidenced by the certificate dated 16.06.2008 (Annex.2) issued in his favor. He further submits that the respondents formulated the Rajasthan MISA and DIR Prisoners Pension Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2008’) to extend pension benefits to the persons, who fought the Indo-Pak war and were detained during the aforesaid period.
3. Being eligible, the petitioner applied for these benefits and was declared eligible; however, the petitioner was never granted the said benefits. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12799/2019; however, in view of the subsequent cancellation of the scheme/order dated 01.10.2014 granting pension under the Rules of 2008, the said petition was withdrawn vide order dated 24.02.2022 with liberty to file afresh, should the need arise, thereby necessitating the present proceedings. Moreover, the respondents issued a revised scheme dated 25.04.2024 (Annex.12) to extend similar benefits under updated guidelines. Despite the petitioner’s eligibility, the respondents rejected his claim based on the existence of six criminal antecedents during the relevant period, thus holding him ineligible.
4. Learned counsel admits that the petitioner had six criminal antecedents as reflected in the report dated 04.08.2014 (Annex.6), however, regarding Case No.35/64 under Section 392 IPC , the petitioner was convicted but subsequently filed an appeal and was acquitted. He submits that unfortunately, the petitioner is unable to produce a copy of the acquittal order as the concerned Court informed him that the document dated 24.04.1991 was weeded out on 15.06.1993, therefore, the petitioner could not furnish a copy either before this Court or before the respondents.
5. He further submits that with regard to Case No.38/73 under Sections 353 and 341 IPC , the report dated 04.08.2014 (Annex.6) indicates that the petitioner was acquitted, and the remaining four cases pertain to periods post year 1976 and thus should not affect the petitioner’s claim.
6. He also submits that the petitioner’s consideration for extension of pension and other benefits has wrongly been rejected by the respondents ignoring the fact that the petitioner was detained under Section 3(2) of the MAINTENANCE OF INTERNAL SECURITY ACT , 1971 (‘MISA’), for the period of 09.07.1995 to 25.01.1976. He submits that the Committee had earlier held petitioner as eligible, however, subsequently, the petitioner was held as ineligible on acco
