Case: Union of India Vs. A. Alagam Perumal Kone &amp; Others

Scheme on the plea of his imprisonment for more than six months for participating in the Quit India Movement. The application, which is made for the second time, is also placed on record as Annexure P-5. In the said application, he has stated that he was imprisoned for more than six months i.e. from 05.01.1944 to 05.07.1944, which is clearly in variance to the period which he has mentioned in the first application. Though, earlier rejection has become final and the particulars mentioned in the claim made by the 1st Respondent are in variance to the particulars mentioned at first instance, without issuing notice and without giving opportunity to the appellant to file counter affidavit, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the petition by granting a positive direction to grant pension. The claim of the 1st Respondent is under the scheme, notified by the appellant-Government. The scheme prescribes to file certain documents to authenticate the imprisonment of a claimant as a freedom fighter. 25. It is the case of the appellant that the documentary evidence filed by the 1st Respondent is not in compliance of the scheme. It is a matter which is to be left to the competent authority to consider. When the application of the 1st Respondent is already rejected in the year 1997, when such rejection order has become final, it is not open for the 1st Respondent to make a claim for second time for pension again by way of fresh application. The 1st Respondent would be entitled to the benefits of this scheme, if he produces the relevant material in support of his claim. As regards the sufficiency of proof, the scheme itself mentions the documents which are required to be produced along with the application. Whether the claimant fulfills the criteria or not, it is for the competent authority to examine it. Even before the application is considered by the competent authority, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court should not have issued any directions for grant of pension. In this case, it is also to be noticed that earlier the claim of the 1st Respondent is already rejected and the said order has become final. After perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, we are of the view that no valid reasons have been assigned to grant relief to the 1st Respondent for grant of pension. It appears that the 1st Respondent has not disclosed his earlier rejection by producing the earlier orders while making the application for the second time before the appellant and also before the High Court. 26. In any event, when such serious factual disputes emerge for consideration, the High Court ought not to have disposed of the petition filed by the Respondent without even issuing notice and giving opportunity to file counter affidavit to rebut the allegations made by the appellant. The judgments of this Court, relied on by the learned Additional Solicitor General in the case of W.B.Freedom Fighters Organization v. Union of India and Others1 and in the case of Union of India v. Bikash R. Bhowmik and Others2 will support the plea of the appellant. In the case of W.B.Freedom Fighters Organization v. Union of India and Others, this Court has held that when the competent committee has considered and opined that the applications were not supported by required documents and rejected the application, this Court cannot interfere with the same and such findings cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. 27. Further, in the case of Union of India vs. Bikash R. Bhowmik and Others2, this Court has held that the pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme of 1980 can be sanctioned as per the proof required under the scheme and in no other manner. In the said judgment, this Court has reversed the order passed by the High Court. 28. In the instant case, the appellant stands on a better footing, for the reason that although the application made by the 1st Respondent on 10.04.1997 was rejected and the said order has become final, he again approached the appellant with the same request. Even before the Competent Authority considers the application, the 1st Respondent approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition and the High Court, not only entertained the petition, but disposed of the same without even notice and opportunity of filing counter affidavit to the appellant. 29. We have also perused the order passed by the Division Bench. Even the Division Bench of High Court has not considered various grounds raised by the appellant, while confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. 30. It may be true that the 1st Respondent is getting pension as per the scheme, mooted by the State, but, at the same time, to claim pension under the scheme of 1980, the 1st Respondent has to furnish the required proof as contemplated under the scheme. When the claim is under a particular scheme, unless one fulfills the eligibility criteria for grant of pension, as mentioned in the scheme, no applicant can claim such pensions, as a matter of right. 31. Though, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent – Writ Petitioner has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in rejecting the Special Leave Petition in limine and also, further, judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Sitakant S. Dubhashi and Anr.3, we are of the view that the order passed by this Court and also the judgment in the case of Union of India v. Sitakant S. Dubhashi and Anr. would not render any assistance in support of his claim. Whether a particular applicant is entitled for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme of 1980, is a matter which is required to be considered having regard to facts and documentary evidence produced in each case, as such, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel is of no assistance to support his case.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]23. It is not in dispute that at first instance, the 1st Respondent herein, has applied for grant of pension in the year 1997 and the application dated 10.04.1997, submitted by the 1st Respondent is placed on record. In the said application, the 1st Respondent has stated that he was underground during the Quit India Movement of 1942 i.e. during the period from August, 1942 up to a period of more than six months. At that time, along with the first application, the Non - Availability of Records Certificate (NARC) obtained from the Government, was not produced and merely a certificate, certified by the C.J.M., Madurai, was produced.24. The first application, which was forwarded to the appellant, was without any specific recommendation. On receipt of such communication from the 2nd respondent, the claim of the 1st Respondent was considered and rejected. The said order has become final and the same was not questioned. Nearly after 13 years of such rejection, on 29.08.2017, the 1st Respondent has again claimed pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme on the plea of his imprisonment for more than six months for participating in the Quit India Movement. The application, which is made for the second time, is also placed on record as Annexure P-5. In the said application, he has stated that he was imprisoned for more than six months i.e. from 05.01.1944 to 05.07.1944, which is clearly in variance to the period which he has mentioned in the first application. Though, earlier rejection has become final and the particulars mentioned in the claim made by the 1st Respondent are in variance to the particulars mentioned at first instance, without issuing notice and without giving opportunity to the appellant to file counter affidavit, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the petition by granting a positive direction to grant pension. The claim of the 1st Respondent is under the scheme, notified by the appellant-Government. The scheme prescribes to file certain documents to authenticate the imprisonment of a claimant as a freedom fighter.25. It is the case of the appellant that the documentary evidence filed by the 1st Respondent is not in compliance of the scheme. It is a matter which is to be left to the competent authority to consider. When the application of the 1st Respondent is already rejected in the year 1997, when such rejection order has become final, it is not open for the 1st Respondent to make a claim for second time for pension again by way of fresh application. The 1st Respondent would be entitled to the benefits of this scheme, if he produces the relevant material in support of his claim. As regards the sufficiency of proof, the scheme itself mentions the documents which are required to be produced along with the application. Whether the claimant fulfills the criteria or not, it is for the competent authority to examine it. Even before the application is considered by the competent authority, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court should not have issued any directions for grant of pension. In this case, it is also to be noticed that earlier the claim of the 1st Respondent is already rejected and the said order has become final. After perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, we are of the view that no valid reasons have been assigned to grant relief to the 1st Respondent for grant of pension. It appears that the 1st Respondent has not disclosed his earlier rejection by producing the earlier orders while making the application for the second time before the appellant and also before the High Court.26. In any event, when such serious factual disputes emerge for consideration, the High Court ought not to have disposed of the petition filed by the Respondent without even issuing notice and giving opportunity to file counter affidavit to rebut the allegations made by the appellant. The judgments of this Court, relied on by the learned Additional Solicitor General in the case of W.B.Freedom Fighters Organization v. Union of India and Others1 and in the case of Union of India v. Bikash R. Bhowmik and Others2 will support the plea of the appellant. In the case of W.B.Freedom Fighters Organization v. Union of India and Others, this Court has held that when the competent committee has considered and opined that the applications were not supported by required documents and rejected the application, this Court cannot interfere with the same and such findings cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable.27. Further, in the case of Union of India vs. Bikash R. Bhowmik and Others2, this Court has held that the pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme of 1980 can be sanctioned as per the proof required under the scheme and in no other manner. In the said judgment, this Court has reversed the order passed by the High Court.28. In the instant case, the appellant stands on a better footing, for the reason that although the application made by the 1st Respondent on 10.04.1997 was rejected and the said order has become final, he again approached the appellant with the same request. Even before the Competent Authority considers the application, the 1st Respondent approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition and the High Court, not only entertained the petition, but disposed of the same without even notice and opportunity of filing counter affidavit to the appellant.29. We have also perused the order passed by the Division Bench. Even the Division Bench of High Court has not considered various grounds raised by the appellant, while confirming the order of the learned Single Judge.30. It may be true that the 1st Respondent is getting pension as per the scheme, mooted by the State, but, at the same time, to claim pension under the scheme of 1980, the 1st Respondent has to furnish the required proof as contemplated under the scheme. When the claim is under a particular scheme, unless one fulfills the eligibility criteria for grant of pension, as mentioned in the scheme, no applicant can claim such pensions, as a matter of right.31. Though, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent – Writ Petitioner has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in rejecting the Special Leave Petition in limine and also, further, judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Sitakant S. Dubhashi and Anr.3, we are of the view that the order passed by this Court and also the judgment in the case of Union of India v. Sitakant S. Dubhashi and Anr. would not render any assistance in support of his claim. Whether a particular applicant is entitled for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme of 1980, is a matter which is required to be considered having regard to facts and documentary evidence produced in each case, as such, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel is of no assistance to support his case.