The court emphasized the importance of timely pursuit of claims and the need for satisfactory supporting documents in determining eligibility for Samman Pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.

ANJANA MISHRA, J.

The present appeal seeks to assail the order, dated 18.10.2012, passed, in CWJC No. 17036 of 2008, whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant for grant of Samman Pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.

2. The facts, leading to the rise of the writ application, which so stands dismissed, are that the appellant had participated, in the freedom movement in the year 1942, he had gone underground suffering for independence since 09.08.1942 and remained underground till 05.11.1943, i.e., for a period of about 15 months during the Quit India Movement of 1942.

3. It is submitted, on behalf of the appellant, that the Swatantrata Sanik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Samman Pension’) came into force with effect from 01.08.1980 and the appellant, being eligible for grant of Samman Pension, made an application, on 31.7.1981, for grant of the same. It is also submitted, on behalf of the appellant, that the appellant’s application came to be allotted, on 19.09.1981, Registration No. 15708. It is the further case of the appellant that the Home Ministry, Government of India, vide its letter, dated 11.08.1986, rejected the appellant’s application on the ground that the certificates, attached in proof of the appellant having gone underground, were not acceptable and that the State Advisory Committee had not recommended the appellant’s case for grant of Samman Pension and, as such, the application, seeking Samman Pension, was not acceptable. It appears from the records of the case that later on, by letter, dated 2/3-8-1989, the State Advisory Committee, in its meeting, rejected the claim of the appellant for grant of Samman Pension.

4. The appellant contends that he had addressed a memorandum to the Prime Minister, Government of India, on 06.09.2003, praying for grant of Samman Pension, which he was fully entitled to as per the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. However, the appellant received no response to his representation addressed to the Prime Minister and, having waited for a considerably long period of time, he filed a writ petition, in this Court, which came to be registered as CWJC No. 17036 of 2008.

5. The respondents contested the writ petition, contending therein, inter alia, that the case of the petitioner was duly considered by the District Advisory Committee as well as the State Advisory Committee and, having found the writ petitioner ineligible to receive Samman Pension, the writ petitioner’s request for grant of Samman Pension was rejected vide their letter, dated 31.08.1989. The respondents further submitted that the writ petitioner had tried to reopen the case after a long lapse of 25 years and, thus, the claim, for Samman Pension, was stale and fit to be rejected.

6. A learned Single Judge of this Court, upon considering the matter, declined to interfere and has dismissed the writ petition, with the following observations:-

“The Court is not enthused to entertain this writ application on more than one reasons. (i) that more than 42 years have gone past when the scheme for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension was initiated. (ii) Claim of petitioner for such grant was rejected by the State Advisory Committee as far back as on 31.8.1989 and the writ application has been filed now for a direction on 24.11.2008.

Looking at the nature of such conferment of benefit and the time which has elapsed since the scheme had been brought into place including rejection of claim of petitioner by the State Advisory Committee, this Court is not inclined to entertain such a stale matter in the given time frame.

This writ application is dismissed.”

7. We have heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Anisul Haque, learned Assistant Counsel to Additional Advocate General No. 9, appearing for the State. We have also heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar Priyadarshi, learned Central Government Counse