ANANDRAO Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the parties. All these petitions are filed by the persons who claim to be the freedom fighters, challenging the orders of cancellation of the freedom fighter's pension awarded to them. In pursuance of the orders passed by the Hon. Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal Nos. 5162 to 5167 of 2005, arising out of SLP Nos. 11344 and 11348 of 2004, one man Commission of Hon. Shri Justice A.B. Palkar (Retired), was appointed to review 354 cases where freedom fighter's pension had been granted. The Commission was initially granted four months' time for completion of the work and submission of the report. However, the time was extended twice on 8th March 2006 and 14th August 2006. The Commission of Justice A.B. Palkar examined all the cases referred to it and afforded opportunity of hearing to all the awardees of the freedom fighter's pension. After examining each case carefully, the Commission recommended that the freedom fighter's pension in respect of 298 persons, out of 355, should be cancelled. Accordingly, the Government issued a Resolution dated 21st March 2007, cancelling the freedom fighter's pension in respect of 298 persons. This Government Resolution and the decision taken by the Government for cancellation of the freedom fighter's pension has been challenged by the petitioners in the present petitions.

(2.) BEFORE we examine the cases of individual freedom fighters, it is necessary to mention that the petitions filed by different persons (alleged freedom fighters) challenging individually orders of cancellation of freedom fighters' pension came up before different Benches of this Court. Writ Petition Nos. 2114, 2130, 2131, 2135, 2140, 2149, 2163, 1014, 1027, 2519, 2522, 2109, 2118, 2128, 2129, 2137, 2142, 2143, 2523, 2106, 2107, 2112, 2117, 2122, 2123, 2141, 2144, 2146, 2147, 2148, 2152, 2153, 2156, 2164 and 2165 of 2008, have been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Smt. Nishita Mhatre & M.T. Joshi, JJ.), by an order dated 14th October 2011. After considering the legal submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties, the Division Bench examined the case of each of the petitioners in the light of the recommendations made in each individual case by the one man Commission and dismissed the petitions upholding the decision of cancellation of the pensions. We would also follow the same practice of first considering the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners and consider the individual cases in the light of the material produced by the individual petitioners.

(3.) THE State, undoubtedly, has a right to lay down certain conditions for grant of a freedom fighter's pension, as has been done by it in the Government Resolution dated 4th July 1995. However, the standard of proof for considering whether the evidence/material regarding fulfillment of the conditions adduced by the petitioner is adequate, is not the same as is required in a criminal trial. The standard of proof for considering whether the facts that entitle the claimant to a freedom fighter's pension exist or not, is preponderance of probabilities and not on the touchstone of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (See para 7 in the case of Gurdial Singh Vs. Union of India and others ( : (2001) 8 SCC 8)). The State must also bear in mind that it is unreasonable to expect a freedom fighter, and especially dependents of a freedom fighter where he has died, should be readily available with all the documents required for the purpose of proving eligibility to the freedom fighter's pension. The jail records may not be readily available. The record may be quite old and in some cases the jail record may not be available at all. Sometimes the claimants would have to rely upon third parties for getting the records and/or necessary materials. In such cases, reasonable time must be granted to the claimant and/or his dependents for producing the proof and, if necessary, the Government machinery must help in gathering the proof. The approach of the Government machinery should not be to create obstruction but to help the claimant to prove a genuine claim.