Case: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Vs. SITAKANT S. DUBHASHI

object of SSSP Scheme, 1980 was to grant central pension to all those, who are in receipt of the State pension cannot be accepted. By relaxing, the SSSP Scheme, 1980 for a limited category, the object of the main Scheme shall not be lost nor those who are not covered by relaxed conditions can claim right to grant of SSSP Scheme, 1980. We, thus, are of the view that the Scheme dated 17.02.2003 has intelligible differentia and also nexus with the object. When relaxation is granted to a limited category, the others, who are not covered by the Scheme cannot claim any violation of right of equality. Right of equality can be claimed only by those who fulfil the eligibilities under the SSSP Scheme, 1980. 27. The submission which has further been pressed by the counsel for respondent No.1 is that when ultimately the state has accepted the respondent No.1 was entitled for State Pension, although, in the year 2008, there is no justification for denying him the benefit. It is submitted that respondent No.1 had applied for grant of State Pension much before 01.08.2002 and if the State had wrongly rejected it earlier, the claim of the respondent No.1 cannot be prejudiced. 28. We have carefully examined and looked into the materials before us as well as the original records. In the subsequent grant of pension to the respondent No.1 in the year 2008, there is no reference or claim that earlier rejection of claim of respondent No.1 was unjustified or was wrong. The scheme was reopened in the year 2003 by the State of Goa and in response to the reopening of the scheme, applications were received and after scrutinizing the claim of respondent No.1 sanctioned w.e.f. 01.12.2007. The Sanction of the Scheme granted to the respondent from 01.12.2007 cannot be read to mean that he was sanctioned from the date when his earlier application was rejected or from the date, he made the application. 29. The High Court has referred to and relied on the judgment of this Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (1993) supp. 3 SCC 2. In the above case, one of the grounds for rejecting the application for grant of SSS Pension was that the petitioner had made an application after the date for making the application as specified in the scheme expired. This Court held that the date prescribed inviting the claim was more of the matter of administrative convenience than as a rigid time limit. In paragraph 7 of the judgment, following has been laid down by this Court: - 7. As regards the contention that the petitioners had filed their applications after the date prescribed in that behalf, we are afraid that the Government stand is not justifiable. It is common knowledge that those who participated in the freedom struggle either at the national level or in the erstwhile Nizam State, are scattered all over the country and most of them may even be inhabiting the remotest parts of the rural areas. What is more, almost all of them must have now grown pretty old, if they are alive. Where the freedom fighters are not alive and their widows and the unmarried daughters have to prefer claims, the position may still be worse with regard to their knowledge of the prescribed date. What is more, if the Scheme has been introduced with the genuine desire to assist and honour those who had given the best part of their life for the country, it ill behoves the Government to raise pleas of limitation against such claims. In fact, the Government, if it is possible for them to do so, should find out the freedom fighters or their dependants and approach them with the pension instead of requiring them to make applications for the same. That would be the true spirit of working out such Schemes. The Scheme has rightly been renamed in 1985 as the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme to accord with its object. We, therefore, cannot countenance the plea of the Government that the claimants would only be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme if they made applications before a particular date notwithstanding that in fact, they had suffered the imprisonment and made the sacrifices and were thus otherwise qualified to receive the benefit. We are, therefore, of the view that whatever the date on which the claimants make the applications, the benefit should be made available to them. The date prescribed in any past or future notice inviting the claims, should be regarded more as a matter of administrative convenience than as a rigid time-limit. 30. The date for making an application in the Scheme, as in the above case the last date for application for considering the freedom fighters pension may not be a rigid rule as rightly held by this Court in Mukund Lal Bhandaris case but present is a case where SSSP Scheme has been extended by relaxing the scheme to Goa Liberation Movement, Phase-II, by fixing a cut-off date for consideration under the scheme which is a condition for grant of SSS Pension. The judgment in Mukund Lal Bhandari is thus distinguishable and cannot be pressed in service in facts of the present case. 31. As noted above, before the High Court appellant could not file reply and bring the relevant facts and materials. The appellant ought to have been careful and produced relevant materials before the High Court for its consideration, but given opportunity by this Court, relevant materials have been brought on the record by way of additional Affidavit which materials we have perused. The appeal is being decided after taking into consideration the relevant materials brought on record. 32. We thus are of the view that there was no error in rejecting the claim of respondent No.1 for grant of SSSP scheme as communicated by communication letters dated 16.11.2009 and 13.11.2014. The Government Scheme dated 17.02.2003 also did not suffer from any infirmity.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]18. The Scheme dated 17.02.2003 clearly provided that the Central Pension is to be granted to the participants of the second phase of Goa Liberation Movement who have been granted freedom fighter pension by the State Government by 01.08.2002Note contains the details of list of freedom fighters received from different states with regard to freedom fighters who took part in second phase of Goa Liberation Movement. The Government of Maharashtra had enclosed a list of 1716 freedom fighters, the Government of Rajasthan had sanctioned pension to 24 persons. It has been noticed that total number of freedom fighters who may be eligible from State of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Goa and Haryana could be approximately 3,500. It was noticed that the scheme cannot be kept open ended and the date fixed to consider only those freedom fighters eligible for relaxation under SSSP Scheme who had taken part in second phase of Goa Liberation Movement(1954-55) and who had already been sanctioned the freedom fighters pension by the concerned State Government before a fixed date such as 01.08.200223. From the material which has been brought on record, it does appear that Government of India deliberated on the issue of cut-off date and the cut-off date was consciously fixed for extending the benefit of SSSP scheme to participants of Goa Liberation Movement, Phase-II. The eligibility under the SSSP Scheme, 1980, is entirely different from the eligibility of the State pension under the Goa Rules. Goa was liberated in 1961. State has framed the rules initially in 1973 and thereafter in 1988. Freedom Fighters were sanctioned pensions in aforesaid Goa Rules at least after 1973. The question of extension of SSSP scheme to the participants of Goa Liberation, Phase-II was being considered by the Central Government from the year 2000 and ultimately, it was extended by Scheme dated 17.02.2003. Already, more than forty years have been passed for Goa Liberation and more than 30 years have been passed for start of sanction of pension by the State of Goa. SSSP Scheme, 1980, had been extended to Goa Liberation Movement, Phase-II by relaxing the conditions which were there for grant of SSS Pension Scheme, 1980. When a benefit is granted in relaxation of Scheme, it is open for the Government to put conditions for eligibility24. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that there is a rationale for extending the Scheme with a cut-off date. The submission of learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that there was no nexus with the object sought to be achieved in fixation of cut-off date i.e. 01.08.2002. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that when the object of SSS Pension Scheme is to grant the benefit of pension to all Freedom Fighters, who participated in the Goa Liberation Movement, there is no intelligible differentia between Freedom Fighters, who were granted State pension by 01.08.2002 and those, who were granted pension subsequent to 01.08.2002. Elaborating the argument, it is further submitted that in any view of the matter in the Cut-off date, there is no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It is submitted that due to there being no intelligible differentia and there being no nexus with the object sought to be achieved, the cut-off date 01.08.2002 was clearly arbitrary and liable to be struck down25. We have already noticed that the SSSP Scheme, 1980 provided for eligibilities for Freedom Fighters to make an application under the SSSP Scheme, 1980. Freedom Fighters of the Goa were also included and those who fulfil the conditions therein were entitled to grant of the pension. In the present case, we are concerned with the SSSP Scheme, 1980. The object of the Scheme was to sanction pension under the Scheme, 1980, who fulfil the eligibilities as per the Scheme. The State pension for which Scheme and Rules have been formulated by different States including the State of Goa were on different eligibilities and the mere fact that a person is eligible or entitled to a State pension does not ipso facto makes him eligible for the SSSP Scheme, 1980. The object of the SSSP Scheme, 1980 was to grant the Freedom Fighters Central Pension to those, who fulfil the eligibility which object was clearly fulfilled in including the Goa Liberation Movement also under the Scheme. As noted above, representations were received from various quarters to extend the SSSP Scheme, 1980 to participants of Goa Liberation Movement particularly, those, who participated in the Second phase of the Movement (1954-55). The Central Government decided to relax the conditions of eligibility under SSSP Scheme, 1980 by Scheme dated 17.02.2003 and while relaxing the Scheme cut- off date 01.08.2002 was fixed for making eligible the participants of Goa Liberation Movement. We have already noticed the rationale for fixing the cut-off date, which was fixed after due deliberation and consideration of relevant factsAs noticed above, the object of SSSP Scheme, 1980 was to grant Central Pension to those who were eligible under the said Scheme. The Freedom Fighters of the Goa Liberation Movement were already included in the Scheme, 1980, who were eligible as per the said Scheme. Thus, with regard to Freedom Fighters of Goa Liberation Movement, the Scheme, 1980 covered them and the object was to grant only those Freedom Fighters of Goa Liberation Movement, who fulfilled the eligibility of SSSP Scheme, 1980. When Scheme was relaxed and extended to participants of the Goa Liberation Movement Second Phase, relaxation was granted in the eligibility as provided in the SSSP Scheme, 1980 with the condition that those who are in receipt of State pension by 01.08.2002 should be extended the benefit of relaxation. The Scheme was not an open-ended Scheme and relaxation was granted to a particular category of persons, who were in receipt of the State pension by 01.08.2002. The relaxation granted by order dated 17.02.2003 cannot be said to be the object of the Central Government. The object under SSSP Scheme, 1980 was always and still is to grant Freedom Fighters pension to those who fulfil the eligibility of SSSP Scheme, 1980. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that object of SSSP Scheme, 1980 was to grant central pension to all those, who are in receipt of the State pension cannot be accepted. By relaxing, the SSSP Scheme, 1980 for a limited category, the object of the main Scheme shall not be lost nor those who are not covered by relaxed conditions can claim right to grant of SSSP Scheme, 1980. We, thus, are of the view that the Scheme dated 17.02.2003 has intelligible differentia and also nexus with the object. When relaxation is granted to a limited category, the others, who are not covered by the Scheme cannot claim any violation of right of equality. Right of equality can be claimed only by those who fulfil the eligibilities under the SSSP Scheme, 198028. We have carefully examined and looked into the materials before us as well as the original records. In the subsequent grant of pension to the respondent No.1 in the year 2008, there is no reference or claim that earlier rejection of claim of respondent No.1 was unjustified or was wrong. The scheme was reopened in the year 2003 by the State of Goa and in response to the reopening of the scheme, applications were received and after scrutinizing the claim of respondent No.1 sanctioned w.e.f. 01.12.2007. The Sanction of the Scheme granted to the respondent from 01.12.2007 cannot be read to mean that he was sanctioned from the date when his earlier application was rejected or from the date, he made the application30. The date for making an application in the Scheme, as in the above case the last date for application for considering the freedom fighters pension may not be a rigid rule as rightly held by this Court in Mukund Lal Bhandaris case but present is a case where SSSP Scheme has been extended by relaxing the scheme to Goa Liberation Movement, Phase-II, by fixing a cut-off date for consideration under the scheme which is a condition for grant of SSS Pension. The judgment in Mukund Lal Bhandari is thus distinguishable and cannot be pressed in service in facts of the present case31. As noted above, before the High Court appellant could not file reply and bring the relevant facts and materials. The appellant ought to have been careful and produced relevant materials before the High Court for its consideration, but given opportunity by this Court, relevant materials have been brought on the record by way of additional Affidavit which materials we have perused. The appeal is being decided after taking into consideration the relevant materials brought on record32. We thus are of the view that there was no error in rejecting the claim of respondent No.1 for grant of SSSP scheme as communicated by communication letters dated 16.11.2009 and 13.11.2014. The Government Scheme dated 17.02.2003 also did not suffer from any infirmity