9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (5) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their income and as a token of honour (Samman) to them. From that date, the maximum quantum of pension was also increased from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- for freedom fighters and the minimum was enhanced from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200/- to the widows of the late freedom fighters with addition of Rs. 50/- per month for each unmarried daughter with a maximum limit of Rs. 300/- per month. The eligibility to get the Samman pension, as it came to be called from 1st August, 1980, depended upon the freedom fighter having suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months. However, if the freedom fighter was a woman or belonged to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, the minimum period of actual imprisonment, was reduced to three months. While explaining the meaning of the actual imprisonment, the Scheme states; (a) the detention , under the orders of the competent authority will be considered as imprisonment; (b) the period of normal remission upto one month would be treated as part of the actual imprisonment; (c) in case the trial ended in conviction, the under-trial period would be counted towards actual imprisonment suffered; (d) the broken period of imprisonment would be totaled up for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition, directed that 41 of the petitioners should be granted pension with effect from 1st August, 1980 although they had made their applications beyond the date which was prescribed for making application. 4. Writ Petition No. 75 of 1991 - Surja and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.- was filed by some of the participants in the Arya Samaj Movement in the late 1930s in the erstwhile Nizam State of Hyderabad. The participants in question were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment exceeding six months. The Union of India filed a counter-affidavit and pointed out that the earlier petition, viz., W.P.No. 1190 of 1989 [Supra] was decided ex-parte and by accepting all the allegations made by the petitioners therein. The Court, therefore, felt that it would not be appropriate to dispose of the petition by adopting the order made by it in the earlier petition. One of the questions which fell for consideration was whether the petitioners had suffered the minimum sentence of six months' imprisonment on account of their participation in the said Movement, which was the qualifying period of imprisonment under the Scheme. It was found from the material produced by most of the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he application. And thirdly, in any case, if it is held that they satisfied the qualifying conditions under the Scheme, they would be entitled to the pension only from the date they produced the required documentary proof in support of their claim and not from any earlier date. 6. 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 possible 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 could, therefore, direct accordingly. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. It is, therefore, unrealistic to expect that the claimants would be in a position to produce documents within a fixed time limit. What is necessary is matters of such claims is to ascertain the factum of the eligibility. The point of time when it is ascertained, is unimportant. The prescription of a rigid time-limit for the proof of the entitlement in the very nature of things is demeaning to the object of the Scheme. We are, therefore, of the view that neither the date of the application nor the date on which the required proof is furnished should make any difference to the entitlement of the benefit under the Scheme. Hence, once the application is made, even if it is unaccompanied by the requisite eligibility data, the date on which it is made should be accepted as the date of the preferment of the claim whatever the date on which the proof of eligibility is furnished. 9. That leaves us with the question as to whether, notwithstanding the date on which the application itself is made, the claimant should be entitled to the benefit of the pension with effect from an earlier date. In support of the contention that the benefit should be made available with retrospective effect, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respective of the income limit. Secondly, and this is equally important to note, since we are by this decision making the benefit of the scheme available irrespective of the date on which the application is made, it would not be advisable to extend the benefit retrospectively. Lastly, the pension under the present Scheme is not the only benefit made available to the freedom fighters or their dependents. The preference in employment, allotment of accommodation and in admission to schools and colleges to their kith and kin etc. are also the other benefits which have been made available to them for quite sometime now. Hence we are of the view that the pension under the Scheme should be made payable only from the date on which the application is made whether the application is accompanied by the necessary proof of eligibility or not. The pension should, of course, be sanctioned only after the required proof is produced. 10. We decline to go into the facts of the individual petitioners in this petition and direct the respondents as follows: [a] The respondents should accept the applications of the petitioners irrespective of the date on which they are made. The applications recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
