The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a liberal approach in determining the eligibility of freedom fighters for pension benefits, based on probabilities and not on the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt', and the entitlement of freedom fighters to the same treatment as eminent personalities under the scheme.

Headnote:
PENSION - FREEDOM FIGHTER - Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme - [Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972] - The court discussed the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme and its objective of providing pension to living freedom fighters and their families. It highlighted the liberal approach required in determining the eligibility of freedom fighters for pension benefits, emphasizing the need to honor and mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country. The court also emphasized that the standard of proof required in such cases is not as high as in criminal cases, and the cases of claimants should be determined based on probabilities and not on the touchstone of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The judgment referenced the Division Bench judgment in Waman Gomaji Umathe v. The State of Maharashtra, as well as the Apex Court judgments in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India and Gurdial Singh v. Union of India to support its findings.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a recognized freedom fighter, claimed pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. His claim was rejected by the Union of India on the ground of insufficient documentary evidence. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the rejection of his pension claim.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had produced the required documentary evidence and was a recognized freedom fighter by the State of Maharashtra, which should have been taken into account by the Union of India. The court also noted that other eminent personalities were granted pension benefits under the scheme without the need for application or proof of sufferings, and the petitioner, as a freedom fighter, was entitled to the same treatment.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of the petitioner's pension claim by the Union of India, the criteria for granting pension benefits to freedom fighters, and the treatment of eminent personalities under the scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a liberal approach in determining the eligibility of freedom fighters for pension benefits, based on probabilities and not on the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It also highlighted the entitlement of freedom fighters to the same treatment as eminent personalities under the scheme.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order of the Union of India was set aside, and the Union of India was directed to pay pension to the petitioner as a freedom fighter with effect from the date of filing the petition. The petitioner was also awarded costs.

JUDGMENT - DAGA V.C., J.:---The petitioner, a freedom fighter recognised by the State of Maharashtra, is claiming pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme ("Scheme" for short) which was introduced by the Government of India with the object of providing grant of pension to the living freedom fighters, their families and to the families of martyrs.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. The factual matrix emerging from the documents filed with the petition are that the petitioner had preferred a claim for grant of Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension ("pension" for short), vide his letter-cum-application dated 24th July, 1981. In support of his claim he had produced two certificates from prominent freedom fighters as required by the scheme, certifying therein that the petitioner was underground during Goa Liberation Movement of 1955.

3. The application preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected by respondent No. 2, Union of India vide letter dated 8th August, 1986 issued under the signature of the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, New Delhi only on the sole ground that the documentary evidence does not prove claim of suffering.

4. The petitioner after getting the aforesaid letter of the rejection made two representations dated 15th April, 2000 and 14th December 2000 (Annexure 'I' and 'J') along with recommendation letters of the Member of Parliament. The representations were made when he came across a news item in the local news paper "Nav Bharat" dated 28th July 1989 incorporated at Annexure K which spelt out that the Home Minister had made statement in Rajya Sabha that even without application the pension had been granted to some of the freedom fighters, such as former Presidents of India Shri Zailsingh and Shri N. Sanjiva Reddy, former Prime Minister Shri Morarji Desai, the then Chief Minister of Hariyana Shri Devilal, Smt. Maniben Patel, daughter of late Sardar Vallabhabhai Patel, Shri Ramkrishna Bajaj, an industrialist and similar such other prominent persons of the country referred to in the said news item. The petitioner claimed similar treatment which was extended by the Government of India to the aforesaid prominent personalities in the matter of grant of pension. However, the representations made by the petitioner did not bear any fruits.

5. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Government of India and the order of rejection dated 8th August 1986, the petitioner preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. On being noticed, respondent No. 1 the State of Maharashtra appeared through the learned A.G.P., and filed its return/counter affidavit duly affirmed by the Collector, Nagpur admitting therein that the Government of Maharashtra has awarded freedom fighters pension to the petitioner vide Government Resolution dated 19th May, 1987 and submitted that the pension claim of the petitioner having been rejected by the Union of India it is for the Union of India, the respondent No. 2 to justify its stand.

7. The respondent No. 2, Union of India to justify their action filed counter affidavit, stating therein that the application of the petitioner for grant of pension was considered and rejected for non-submission of documentary evidence in support of his claim. It was further contended that verification report as well as entitlement for pension report having not been received from the State Government which was mandatory, the claim of the petitioner was not considered favourably. In reply to the allegations made by the petitioner that some of the prominent political leaders, industrialist and social workers were granted pension benefits under the said scheme, the respondent No. 2 categorically admitted to have granted such pension to them suo motu without there being any application or proof of sufferings but contended that the same criteria cannot be applied in petitioner's case because all those persons are/were prominent per

Click Here to Read the rest of this document