Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5344 OF 2012
(@ SLP (C) NO. 8899 OF 2010)
Kamalbai Sinkar ….Appellant
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .…Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the High Court in the
Writ Petition in which the claim of the appellant’s husband for grant of
Freedom Fighters’ Pension came to be rejected. Today the original
applicant is not available and his wife is pursuing this litigation. By a
Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995, after making references to various
other earlier resolutions of the Government of Maharashtra relating to
grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension, the criteria for grant of Freedom
Fighters’ Pension was specified under two different categories, namely, one
under “Prisoners Freedom Fighter” and the other under the category of
“Underground Freedom Fighter”. The claim of the appellant’s husband was
under the second category, namely, “Underground Freedom Fighter”.
3. For grant of pension under the said category following requisites
were stipulated:
“ E) Underground Freedom Fighter:-
Those freedom fighters who were under ground and doing a work in
a movement of Quit India 1942-44 and Hydrabad Mukti Sangram 1947-48.
They submit the following necessary certificates:
1)Required to quit house and stay outside.
2)Required to leave education or removed from Educational
Institutions.
3) Was so beaten by the police that caused disability.
2) The Certificates of two Freedom Fighters who were convicted for
minimum two years or who were declared absconding or who remained
absconded for at least two years and along with such certificates, the
Proclamation of conviction or absconding or supporting affidavit of
person issuing such certificate alongwith the orders of Government.
4) The certified copy, if any, Government document of that time is
available regarding the underground.
5) If any information about the name published in newspapers, the
original newspaper.
6) At the time of remark, District Gaurao Committee shall submit their
opinion.”
4. The said Resolution was issued with the consent of the Finance
Department bearing reference No. C.R-1183/94/VY-4 dated 10.11.1994.
Pursuant to the said resolution dated 04.07.1995, the husband of the
appellant forwarded his application dated 05.08.1995 through the Collector
of Amravati. Along with the said application, he also enclosed certain
Annexures (viz) a certificate of renowned freedom fighter dated 24.04.1984
by name Shankar Pandurangji Choudhari, a certificate issued by Mr. Maganlal
Bagdi, Ex-MP, Hoshangabad along with his own certificate, a certificate of
Patwari Kasba, Warud Division, Taluk Warud dated 29.09.1981, a certificate
dated 08.06.1981 of freedom fighter S.P.Choudhary of Warud Taluk, Amravati
District, a certificate issued by the office of Naib Tehsildar, M.K.
Puranik dated 05.08.1961 in favour of Shankar Pandurang Choudhary about the
imprisonments suffered by him and a medical certificate dated 15.08.1981
issued by Dr. S.G. Choudhari in favour of the applicant about his
participation in Satyagraha Morcha on 13.08.1942, the injuries suffered by
him in the Lathi Charge and the treatment given to him between 13.08.1942
to 15.08.1942.
5. Based on an earlier order passed by the Nagpur Bench of the High
Court in Writ Petition No.424 of 2007, the Collector of Amravati in his
letter dated 29.10.2009 informed the appellant that her husband’s claim for
grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension was submitted to the Government along
with recommendation of the Gaurav Samiti dated 20.12.1996. The appellant
was advised to contact the Government. However, in the order of the State
Government dated 22.01.2008 communicated to the Collector of Amravati, it
was stated that there was no concrete evidence in proof of the
participation of the freedom fight movement by the husband of the appellant
and his claim for grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension was, therefore,
rejected. The Collector was directed to communicate the same to the
appellant.
6. Having perused the above materials on record, at the very outset, we
wish to refer to the observations made by this Court in regard to the grant
of Freedom Fighter’s Pension in the decision reported in Gurdial Singh v.
Union of India & Ors. [2001 (8) SCC 8]. In paragraph 7 of the judgment,
this Court has highlighted the manner in which such claims are to be
considered for grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension. It will be worthwhile
to make a reference to the said passage before expressing our conclusion
with regard to the claim of the appellant’s husband in the case on hand.
Paragraph 7 reads as under:
“7.The standard of proof required in such cases is not such
standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case
adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of the parties. As
the object of the Scheme is to honour and to mitigate the
sufferings of those who had given their all for the country, a
liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed
while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking
pension under the Scheme. It should not be forgotten that the
persons intended to be covered by the Scheme had suffered for the
country about half-a-century back and had not expected to be
rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them. Once the country
has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats
entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom
fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of
the Scheme. The case of the claimants under this Scheme is
required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and
not on the touchstone of the test of “beyond reasonable doubt”.
Once on the basis of the evidence it is probabilised that the
claimant had suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country
and during the freedom struggle, a presumption is required to be
drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted by cogent,
reasonable and reliable evidence.”
[emphasis added]
7. Keeping the above broad principles in mind, when we analyse the claim
of the appellant’s husband, we find that the appellant’s husband had filed
along with his application dated 05.08.1995, a host of documents in support
of his claim. They were shown as Annexures to his application and the
details of which have been referred to by us in the earlier part of this
order. In fact after the order of the Nagpur Bench passed in WP No.424 of
2007, the Government in its communication dated 23.11.2007 addressed to the
Collector of Amravati stated that the claim of the appellant’s husband was
not traceable and, therefore, all related documents were once again
required to be collected and submitted to the Government including
recommendations of Gaurav Samiti as well as the Collector’s comments.
Apparently, pursuant to the said communication, the Collector in his letter
dated 29.10.2009 informed the appellant that the case submitted by her
husband for getting pension as Underground Freedom Fighter was submitted to
the Government along with office letter bearing No.KL/SS/PP/KV/3216 dated
20.12.1996 and the recommendations of Gaurav Samiti.
8. In the said circumstances, we only state that the appellant’s husband
made a genuine effort to collect all those credentials in his support as
required under the Resolution of the State Government dated 04.07.1995, and
forwarded them to the State Government along with his application dated
05.08.1995. When the Collector, Amrawati forwarded his letter dated
20.12.1996 and reiterated his recommendation in his subsequent
communications dated 14.10.2007 and 30.11.2007 there was no reason for the
State Government to simply reject the application without assigning any
reason. A perusal of the documents enclosed by the appellant’s husband
along with his application disclose that the appellant’s husband made out a
case for grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension under the category “Underground
Freedom Fighter”. Applying the broad principles laid down in the decision
of this Court in Gurdial Singh (supra), it will have to be held that there
was nothing more for the State to examine to honour the claim of the
appellant’s husband for grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension. The claim of
the appellant’s husband cannot be held to be a fraudulent one or without
any supporting material.
9. In our considered view, the High Court ought to have examined the
grievance of the appellant before confirming the order of rejection of the
respondent State. In the circumstances, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
The impugned orders are set aside. The respondent State is directed to
grant Freedom Fighters’ Pension in favour of the appellant’s husband and
since he is no more, grant the same with all arrears to the appellant by
passing appropriate orders expeditiously preferably within four weeks from
the date of communication of copy of this order. We hope and trust that
the State Government will not indulge in any further delay in the matter of
grant of pension so as to enable the appellant to avail the benefits at
least during her life time. The appeal stands allowed with the above
directions to the respondent State. No costs.
…..……….…………………………...J.
[T.S. Thakur]
...................………………………………J.
[Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]
New Delhi;
July 20, 2012
