Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 28943
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
,
Widow of the freedom fighter – Appellant
Versus
1st respondent (Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division) – Respondent
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Deputy Solicitor General
Freedom fighter pension claims require independent government assessment; shifting evidentiary burden onto an aged widow without proper inquiry is unjust and warrants reconsideration.
Headnote:(A) Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 - Eligibility criteria - Imprisonment for six months as minimum requirement for freedom fighter pension - Differential provisions for former INA personnel - Certificates from co-prisoners considered as evidence - Obligation of authorities to independently apply mind before rejection - Burden of proof on petitioner not absolute when records may be with Government - (Paras 3, 6, 15, 19)
(B) Administrative Law - Duty to consider claims of freedom fighters' families with dignity and respect - Recognition of service and sacrifice merits favorable consideration by State and Central Governments - Procedural lapses and shifting of burden on aged widow condemned by Court (Paras 6, 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, widow of a deceased freedom fighter and former Indian National Army member, who had suffered six months' imprisonment, was granted pension by the State Government but was denied Central Government pension following procedural and evidentiary disputes. The petitioner sought recognition and pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, supported by certificates from co-prisoners affirming incarceration. Both State and Central authorities rejected her claim, relying on each other's orders without independent review.
Findings of Court:
The Court reproached the respondents for denying pension based on mutual references without independent examination. It held that the burden of proving pension application should not rest unfairly on the aged widow when records may be with Government. The Court emphasized dignity and respect towards freedom fighters' families and set aside the impugned order, directing fresh consideration within eight weeks.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to Central Government freedom fighter pension as surviving spouse under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, particularly in light of evidentiary certificates and procedural delays; and whether the authorities fulfilled their duty to independently assess the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the requirement for imprisonment was met and certificates provided were unrebutted; procedural injustices and mutual reliance of respondent government orders without independent inquiry was improper, compelling remand for fresh consideration of the claim with proper application of mind and fairness.
Result: The impugned order dated 01.08.2022 is quashed. The petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the Central Government for fresh consideration within eight weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. evidence and eligibility for freedom fighter pension under sssy scheme (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 8 , 14) |
| 2. arguments and authorities’ reliance on mutual rejection orders (Para 5 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court's criticism of procedural lapses and burden shifting (Para 6 , 7 , 10 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. ratio decidendi on requirement for independent examination and remand (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed by a Widow of a person who had served as a freedom fighter and who was a member of the Indian National Army and who had also suffered imprisonment for a period of six months. The fact that the husband of the petitioner was a member of the Indian National Army cannot be either denied or disputed, since the husband of the petitioner had applied for Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme on 7.1.1982 with both the State and the Central Government.
2.The State Government had considered the services of the husband of the petitioner and by an order dated 03.07.1982 and by Pension Order No.11352 had granted pension to the husband of the petitioner herein. The husband of the petitioner however did not get any pension from the Central Government. At that point of time he was satisfied with getting pension from the State Government. A second application has been made by the husband of the petitioner on 03.9.1999. He had also obtained an All India Indian National Army Service Record on 30.11.1987. Reminders had been sent to the 1st respondent seeking pension from the Central Government. In this connection, he had also enclosed certificates from co-prisoners, K.Manickam, K.Pathinettan and also from P.Subramani and all of them confirmed that the husband of the petitioner was incarcerated in jail for a period of six months.
3.With respect to whether that incarceration for six months is sufficient or not, the Court will have to examine the Rules for grant of pension under the SSS Pension Scheme 1980. For grant of pension under the scheme, a freedom fighter is a person who had suffered minimum imprisonment for six months. However, it had also been provided for a former Indian National Army personnel, he will be eligible for pension if the imprisonment/detention suffered by him was outside India and for six months. The actual period of such imprisonment for eligibility of pension had been reduced to three months for women and for SC/ST freedom fighters on and from 01.08.1980. Therefore the eligibility criteria was, for the husband of the petitioner to have suffered incarceration for a period of 6 months. Certificates had been obtained from three co-prisoners that he had actually suffered imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Those certificates had not been put to test or questioned either by the State Government or by the Central Government. The State Government had actually granted pension to the husband of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner however unfortunately died on 23.08.2004. He had left behind his legal representatives and the petitioner is his widow.
4.Thereafter, the petitioner had applied for Central Government Pension as surviving spouse. The petitioner also claims that since the husband of the petitioner had made an application for grant of pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Yojana (SSSY) as early as September 1999, she is also eligible for grant of such pension.
5.The learned Deputy Solicitor General for the 1st respondent based his arguments on the fact that the State Government had rejected the claim of the petitioner herein to be eligible to be granted pension after the death of her husband. In this connection, in the order of the 1st respondent dated 01.08.2022 the extract of the order of the State Government had been extracted, which was as follows:
“5.Whereas in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 21.04.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, the matter has been recommended in the light of State Govt.letter dated 20.05.2022, which was not recommended the case of the petiti
