Union of India vs Smt. Badamo Devi

Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—The 1st respondent, Union of India, has preferred the present Letter Patent Appeal, through its Secretary in the Department of Home against the judgment passed by learned Single Judge on 4.1.2011 in CWP No.1259 of 2008. The 1st respondent (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioner) had filed the writ petition with the following prayers:-

i) to issue appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents No. 1 and 2 by way of mandamus to consider and grant the petitioner the pensionary benefits under the Swatantra Sainik Saman Pension Scheme, 1980 in accordance with the judgment Annexure P-1, circular Annexure P-9 and the judgment Annexure P-11 taking into consideration the grant of pension by the State Government vide Annexure P-6 and to further direct the respondent No. 1 to give all pensionary benefits under the Central Scheme from the date of the application alongwith interest;

ii) to direct the respondent No. 2 to release the arrears of pension alongwith interest in terms of the grant of pension vide Annexure P-6, in view of the judgment in the case of Mukand Lal Bhandari vs. Union of India whereby the arrears are to be paid from the date of the application as also in consonance with the judgments of this Hon''ble Court Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-11.

The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and under challenge in the present appeal reveals that on the submissions made by learned counsel that the case of the petitioner is covered under judgment dated 26.11.2010 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.85 of 2008, titled Union of India vs. Sant Ram & Another, and accepting the same, has extracted the text of this judgment below para 8 of the impugned judgment and concluded as follows:-

In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioner is covered under the judgment referred to hereinabove and she is also a similarly situate person, her case alongwith her co-widow, Smt. Gurdei for grant of ''Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980'' shall be considered by respondent No. 1 in accordance with law and justice and she shall also be similarly treated without any discrimination, taking into consideration the uncontrovertible secondary evidence in the form of ''Personal Knowledge Certificates'' Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-14 to the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, being CWP No. 1066 of 1995, titled Smt. Badamo Devi vs. Union of India and another, the fact that the petitioner alongwith her co-widow, Smt. Gurdei, has already been granted such pension by respondent No. 2 and the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari and others Vs. Union of India and others, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner, failing which interest @ 12% per annum shall also be payable from the date of institution of the earlier petition (CWP No. 1066 of 1995), i.e., 5th July, 1995."

At the very outset, we deem it appropriate to point out that the learned Single Judge has only issued a direction to the appellant-first respondent to consider the case of the writ petitioner and her co-widow Gurdei for grant of ''Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension'' in accordance with ''Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980'', if on facts her case was covered under the judgment in Sant Ram''s case cited supra. A perusal of grounds of appeal reveals that during the course of proceedings in contempt petition No.202 of 2011 filed by the writ petitioner with the prayer to initiate contempt proceedings against the 1st respondent for non implementation of the impugned judgment though later on was ordered to be converted into an execution petition, the said respondent in compliance to the directions of this Court during execution proceedings has sanctioned the ''Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension'' in favour of the writ petitioner and her co-widow Smt. Gurdei provisionally w.e.f. 3.1.2012, in relaxation of the eligibility criteria and evidentiary requirements under the Scheme, however, subject to the outcome of the present appeal.

The records further disclose that the impugned judgment has been challenged on several grounds, however, mainly that this case is not covered under the judgment rendered in Sant Ram''s case extracted below para 8 thereof.

The rejection of the case of the writ petitioner is stated to be in consonance with the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari and others Vs. Union of India and others, and few other judgments as extracted in the grounds of appeal.

In this back drop, it has been submitted that the grant of pension to the persons, who are otherwise not eligible for pension under the scheme may amount to undue burden on the Government exchequer, besides opening a floodgate for other similarly situated persons. With these submissions, the impugned judgment has been sought to be set aside.

It is seen that under clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act, a party aggrieved by an order/judgment passed by the learned Single Judge can assail the legality and validity thereof by filing the appeal. As noticed at the very outset, in the impugned judgment the only direction is for consideration of the case of the petitioner for sanction of Samman Pension under the ''Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension, Scheme, 1980, if the same is covered under the judgment in Sant Ram''s case extracted below para 8 thereof. Precisely, the case as set out by the 1st respondent is that the claim as laid by the writ petitioner is not covered by the judgment of this Court in Sant Ram''s case cited supra and rather covered against her by the ratio of the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari''s case cited supra, which reads as follows:-

.........The petitioners would undoubtedly be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme provided, of course, they produce the relevant material in support of their claim. ......."

As regards the sufficiency of the proof, the Scheme itself mentions the documents which are required to be produced before the Government. It is not permissible for this Court to scrutinize the documents which according to the petitioners, they had produced in support of their claim and pronounce upon their genuineness. It is the function of the Government to do so. We would, therefore, direct accordingly."

..........The pension should, of course, be sanctioned only after the required proof is produced.

It has to be seen that there is also a direction to take into consideration the Personal Knowledge Certificates P-1, P-2 and P-14 produced in CWP No. 1066 of 1995, which had not been in dispute also. Yet another relevant factor is that the 1st respondent is already a recipient of State Pension for the freedom fighters, which had been granted after verification of the records.

Therefore, it is for the appellants to take into consideration all these relevant factors, including the fact that the 1st respondent, who is in the evening of her life, has been fighting for getting the pension for freedom fighters for around two decades. Thus, we find no grounds to interfere with the judgment under appeal and hence the LPA is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.