OMANA Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) This writ appeal has been filed against judgment dated 30th May, 2013 in WP(C) No. 13591/2013. Petitioner was granted dependent family pension as widow of deceased freedom fighter by order dated 19th November, 2010 w.e.f. 2nd July, 2010 on the basis of direction issued by this Court dated 2nd July, 2010 in WP (C) No. 1830/2008. Aggrieved by the order in so far as it granted the benefit of pension from 2nd July, 2010 alone, and not from the date of the application, petitioner filed WP(C) No. 13591/13, which writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge upholding the order of the Central Government. Learned Single Judge took the view that since the claim of the petitioner was granted only on the basis of secondary evidence and not on the basis of primary evidence, grant of pension from 2nd July, 2010 was justified. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that claim of petitioner for grant of pension was based on underground suffering of petitioner's husband and for the said claim, although no primary evidence could be produced, but personal knowledge certificate was submitted by the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the Scheme, i.e., Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, the claim pertaining to underground suffering can be proved by documentary evidence by way of Court's/Government Orders proclaiming the applicant as an offender or certificates from veteran freedom fighter, who had thus undergone imprisonment. He has referred to Clause 9 of the Scheme, and submits that there cannot be any difference between the evidence produced by the claimant for proving his/her claim. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari v/s. Union of India ( : AIR 1993 SC 2127).