M RAMULU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter relates to grant of pension to the Freedom Fighters under the Scheme known as Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme. The petitioners were granted pension with effect from the various dates as stated in paragraph 8 of the petition. The only prayer made herein is that the petitioners are entitled to pension w.e.f. August 1, 19.80 and as a consequence they have prayed that the arrears may also be given.

(2.) 2. The respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein it has been reiterated that (a) the cases of the petitioners were considered by the Non-official committee in the absence of any official record. Even though the Government had every right to accept or reject the recommendations of the committee pension was sanctioned in these cases from different dates; (b) the petitioners herein were sanctioned pension keeping in view the policy guidelines and they have already been drawing the pension from the dates indicated in the petition including other related benefits; (c) the petitioners have not produced any documentary evidence from the jail records indicating that they were convicted for six months or more and were released on account of general amnesty; (d) according to the records available with the respondents all the petitioners had claimed pension on the basis of underground sufferings and not jail sufferings. No documentary evidence even with regard to underground sufferings was produced by any of the petitioners. On the other hand, one of the petitioners at serial No. 13 clearly admitted that no arrest warrant was issued against her which proves that the underground suffering if at all undergone, was voluntary. Their claim for pension could, therefore, have been straight away rejected by the Government in the absence of such records which is the requisite condition under the scheme. However, pension was granted to them on the basis of recommendations made by non-official committee from different dates in accordance with the policy which was being followed at that time. The petitioners cannot, at this stage, be permitted to convert the scheme into a programme of compensation after having availed of the benefits of pension and other related benefits for years together.

(3.) The learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amar Nath Malhotra & ors v. Union of India and another Writ Petition (C) No. 887 of 1992 decided on October 19, 1994 wherein, be contends, similar relief as claimed in the petition was granted to the petitioner therein. I have perused the copy of the judgment which is placed on record. The Supreme Court has referred the case back to the Authority to consider the claims of the petitioners for grant of pension from the date of the respective applications subject to such proof as may be necessary. It is, however, clearly specified in the judgment "that if the petitioners have in fact been granted the pension from a date subsequent to their applications, their cases would have been scrutinised before the grant of pension. In that case, it is correct to say that there would be no further proof required for granting them pension from the date of their applications. Ordinarily, that would be so and, therefore, unless there is some special reason for documentary proof the authority should grant them pension from the dates of their applications." The counter affidavit filed by the respondents clearly indicates that no documentary evidence with regard to the underground suffering was furnished and the underground suffering, if at all any, was voluntary. The relief in such a situation was granted as a case of benefit of doubt. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in Union of India v. M.R.chelliah Thevar Civil Appeal No.7762/1996 decided on April 30, 1996 which has upheld the concept of benefit of doubt and confined the relief to the one as granted by the Government of India.