A beneficial welfare scheme like the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Yojana should not be denied to a deserted, mentally ill daughter of a freedom fighter through hyper-technical interpretations of marital status, as the primary intent is to ensure the dignity of the freedom fighter's dependents.

(delivered by M.Jothiraman, J.)

Assailing the order dated 10.12.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.9162 of 2025, the appellants have preferred the present criminal appeal.

2. Originally, the first respondent/writ petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the first appellant and consequently, direct the first appellant to sanction the Central Freedom Fighter Pension [Swatantrata Sainik Samman Yojana (SSSY)] Scheme, from 20.05.2015 and to direct the payment of Central Pension to the first respondent/writ petitioner.

3. According to the first respondent/writ petitioner, her father viz. Joseph was a freedom fighter and he had been granted the freedom fighters’ pension. After the demise of her father, her mother was granted the freedom fighters’ pension and she died on 10.10.2007. The first respondent/writ petitioner was married and later, she was deserted by her husband on the ground that she is suffering from Schizophrenia, which is a chronic and debilitating mental illness. Thereafter, the first respondent/writ petitioner was taken care of by her brother.

4. The writ Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that the first respondent/writ petitioner is suffering from mental illness and she is unable to take care of herself and her brother is taking care of her. Under such circumstances, there cannot be a hyper-technical approach to decline pension only on the ground that her marital status was ‘married’. The writ Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Khajani Devi, decided on 27.09.2019 in S.L.P.(Civil) Diary No.17706 of 2017, in which, it had been held that the respondent therein was entitled to pension, though she was married and divorced. Keeping in view of the fact that the first respondent’s/writ petitioner’s brother is taking care of her and her mental illness, the writ Court held that the freedom fighters’ pension cannot be denied to the first respondent/writ petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

5. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the appellants would submit that as per Clauses 5.2.3 and 5.2.5 of the revised policy guidelines issued by the Ministry in the year 2014 and O.M. dated 30.12.2015, which imposes twin conditions for eligible dependents, the first respondent/writ petitioner is not entitled for freedom fighters’ pension. The first respondent/writ petitioner admittedly stood married and as per the reports of the second respondent/District Collector, the first respondent/writ petitioner does not fall within the definition of ‘unmarried daughter’, as contemplated under the scheme and therefore, the first respondent/writ petitioner ceases to be eligible for dependent pension. Desertion or mental illness, howsoever unfortunate, cannot be recognized as an exception under the SSSY scheme for extending eligibility to a married daughter, and reading such exceptions into the scheme amount to rewriting the policy.

6. The learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the appellants would further submit that the writ Court erroneously cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khajani Devi (cited supra), wherein, the respondent therein was entitled to pension, because, she was married and divorced, whereas, in the instant case on hand, the writ Court ought to have considered that the first respondent’s/writ petitioner’s marital status, as per the Div