CHANDRA SEKHAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner, who is a Freedom Fighter and is receiving pension under the Swatantra Samman Pension Scheme of the Government of India since 11-8-88 is that the pension to him has been sanctioned not from the date of his application, as per the law laid drown by the Apex Court in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari vs. Union of India, reported in A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 2127. Mr. Jha learned Addl. S.C. appearing for the Union of India has vehemently opposed this writ petition. It has been submitted by him that the writ application is fit to be dismissed on the sole ground that it suffers from gross delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in moving this Court after almost five years. Further, he submitted that the principle laid down in Mukund Lal Bhandari's case is not applicable, as the claim of the petitioner was thrice rejected prior to the final order was passed granting him pension in the year 1989, as he had not produced the acceptable documentary evidence in support of his claim.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in reply submitted that the petition does not suffer from any delay and laches, inasmuch as the law regarding grant of pension from the date of filing of the application was finally cleared by the decision of the Apex Court only in the year 1993. In the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari (supra) the Supreme Court on detailed consideration, held that the pension under the scheme should be made payable only from the date of which the application is made, whether the application is accompanied by the necessary proof or eligibility or not. The pension should, of course, be sanctioned only after the required proof is produced. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner filed application for grant of Freedom Fighter's pension on 29-7-81. However, in the absence of required proof there was delay in issuing sanction order, which was passed on 3-12-89.

(3.) In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, I find it difficult to accept the submission of the learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner will not be entitled to invoke the law laid down by the Apex Court with respect to the date of grant of pension. The very scheme makes a person entitled for grant of pension if he/she fulfils the required conditions. Thus, a person cannot be denied of his pension merely because he/she has not approached the Court and as order is not passed by the Court, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court.