Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 13

PATNA HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL BENCH PATNA
Jyoti Saran, J
Manager Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home, Freedom Fighter Department, N.D.C.C. Building, Phase- II, 2nd Floor, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.576 of 2016

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Adv., Mr. Saroj Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. S.S.P. Yadav, SC-14
For the Respondent-UOI: Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. S.G. with Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, CGC

A liberal approach based on probabilities, not strict technicalities, should govern the assessment of claims for freedom fighter pensions under the relevant scheme.

Headnote:(A) Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 - Writ petition for grant of pension - Petitioner claimed participation in the 1942 freedom struggle, but faced bureaucratic delays due to requirements for attestation of documents - Court held that Government should adopt a liberal approach, emphasizing a primary evidence standard based on probabilities rather than technicalities - Directs grant of pension from application date. (Paras 6, 7, 10, 11, 18)

(B) Bureaucratic inefficiency - The Court criticized the inaction of government authorities and their hyper-technical approach, reiterating the obligation to process applications fairly. (Para 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for a freedom fighter pension under the mentioned Scheme in 1981, and his claim was approved by the State Government but stalled by the Union Government's demands for attestations.

Findings of Court:
The Union Government's objections regarding the attestation of documents were found to be unjustified, given the extensive documentation available.

Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of documents submitted for pension application and the delays caused by the Government of India.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the necessity for a liberal approach in processing pension claims for freedom fighters, aligning with past Supreme Court advisories, and determined that lack of technical compliance should not hinder just claims.

Result: Writ petition is allowed, directing the government to grant pension to the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. responses from government bodies regarding documentation. (Para 7)

CAV JUDGMENT

Date: 10-04-2017

The petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant him freedom fighter pension in terms of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme , 1980.

The writ petitioner claims to have participated in the 1942 freedom struggle and was made an accused in a criminal case bearing G.R. No.742/41 (Emperor vs. Vishwanath Prasad and others) registered for the offences punishable under sections 395 and 126 of the Penal Code and section 26(i) (B) of the Defence of India Rules in which 78 others were also made accused. According to the petitioner, he was declared a proclaimed offender and absconder vide order passed on 26.2.1942 by the court of Shri B.S.N. Jha. According to him, he was an absconder for the period 1942 to 1946.

The petitioner applied for grant of freedom fighter pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme , 1980 (hereinafter referred to as >the Scheme?) in the prescribed proforma, a copy of which is present at Annexure-2. According to the petitioner, he submitted the required papers, copies of which are present at Annexures-1, Annexure-3 and Annexure-3/1 which are the documents supporting the claim and which were verified by the Bihar State Freedom Fighter Advisory Committee, Patna approving the claim. The claim of the petitioner was forwarded by the Director –cum- Joint Secretary, Home (Special) Department vide letter bearing Memo No.1404 dated 18.4.1985, a copy of which is present at Annexure-4 but remained pending with the Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Department, Government of India. The petitioner represented before the respondents and according to the petitioner, the Government of India in its Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighter Department dated 5.9.2014 called for papers from the State Government which was responded to by the Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department vide his letter dated 29.5.2015 present at Annexure-5, whereby he informed the Ministry that the application of the petitioner in its original and the other documents viz, personal knowledge certificate and the order of the State Level Advisory Committee, duly verified, had already been sent on 18.4.1985 (incorrectly mentioned as 18.4.1995) with recommendations for payment of freedom fighter pension. The Deputy Secretary, however, accepting the request has again forwarded the second copy of the application form and other documents in original with recommendation for payment of freedom fighter pension to the petitioner.

The Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide his letter dated 17.6.2015 while acknowledging the receipt of the letter dated 29.5.2015 of the State Government has stated that the documents accompanying are not in accordance with the documents required in the letter of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 8.9.2014 and thus the State Government was requested to send attested copies of the earlier recommendations with fresh recommendation in terms of the pension scheme. The letter of the Government of India was again responded to by the Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar vide letter dated 10.9.2015 forwarding the photo copies of the documents so desired by the Government of India which included the application form filed by the petitioner, the court records, the attested copy of court records, the personal knowledge certificate, the order of State Level Advisory Committee and the earlier recommendation bearing letter no.1404 dated 18.4.1985. A copy of the letter is present at Annexure-7. The Government of India in its Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Department, yet not being satisfied by the response, again directed the Home (Special) Department of the Government of Bihar to send duly attested/ countersigned papers of the petitioner. This letter dated 14.10.2015 of the G

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 13

PATNA HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL BENCH PATNAJyoti Saran, JManager Yadav – AppellantVersusThe Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home, Freedom Fighter Department, N.D.C.C. Building, Phase- II, 2nd Floor, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi – RespondentCivil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.576 of 2016

A liberal approach based on probabilities, not strict technicalities, should govern the assessment of claims for freedom fighter pensions under the relevant scheme.

Cases Referred (4)