Holding

The Supreme Court held that the applicant’s pension claim was defective for not complying with the mandatory documentary requirements, so the High Court’s order granting the pension was unwarranted, though the pension already paid shall not be recovered.

Summary

The respondent, Shri Avtar Singh, applied for a pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, claiming imprisonment during the freedom struggle. Although a pension was initially granted, the authorities later cancelled it upon discovering that the respondent had given two different periods of imprisonment in his affidavits, and directed him to refund the amount paid. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the discrepancy was immaterial and ordered the pension to be granted, a decision later affirmed by a Division Bench. The Union of India appealed, contending that the application was defective because it lacked the mandatory jail certificate or, in its absence, a Non‑Availability of Records Certificate (NARC) together with the required co‑prisoner certificates. The Supreme Court held that the statutory documentary requirements were not satisfied, rendering the application invalid, and therefore the High Court's order granting the pension was unjustified. However, the Court directed that the pension already paid should not be recovered, and allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court orders.

Issues considered

The applicant’s pension claim is valid despite the absence of a jail authority certificate or a NARC with co‑prisoner certificates.
Whether the discrepancy in the periods of imprisonment disclosed in the applicant’s affidavits defeats his entitlement to pension.
Whether the pension already paid can be recovered after the application is held defective.

Subjects

Freedom fighter pensionSwatantrata Sainik Samman Pension SchemeDocumentary proofJail certificateNon‑Availability of Records CertificateCo‑prisoner certificatePension entitlementAppellate jurisdiction

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA
v.
SHRI AVTAR SINGH

JULY 18,2006

B [ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,JJ.]

Swatantrata Sainik Sam man Pension Scheme, I 980-Freedom fighters
pension-Entitlement for payment-Relevant proof of-Affidavits indicating
C different period of imprisonment-Non-filing of jail certificates supporting
jail suffering based on jail records-Jn its absence, non-availability of records
certificate also not filed-Thus, claimant not entitled to pension-However,
pension already paid would not be recovered.

Respondent claimed pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman
D Pension Scheme, 1980 since he had participated in the freedom struggle of
the country and had suffered imprisonment. Pension was granted to the
respondent, but later, on enquiry it was found that the respondent had indicated
different versions of period of imprisonment while claiming pension under
the Scheme and the same was accepted hy him. Thereafter, the pension
sanctioned to him was cancelled and he was directed to refund the amount
E already paid to him. Aggrieved, respondent approached the court. High Court
holding the difference in the dates of period of imprisonment as
inconsequential, issued direction for grant of pension to the respondent under
the Scheme. Thereafter, Letters Patent Appeal was filed which was dismissed.
Hence the present appeal.

F Appellant-Union of India contended that the application filed by the
respondent was incomplete; that jail certificate in support of jail suffering
based on official records of the jail was not filed and on the contrary certificate
from a person whose credentials were doubtful was filed; and that in case jail
certificate was not available, a Non-Availability of Records Certificate from
G the concerned authorities was to be filed and only if such certificate is filed,
the Co-prisoners Certificate from two co-prisoners could be considered.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. In terms of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension
H 666
U.0.1. v.AVTARSINGH[PASAYAT,J.] 667
Scheme, 1980 the applicant has to furnish a certificate from the jail authority, A
District Magistrate or the State authorities indicating the period of sentence
awarded, date of admission, date of release and reasons for release and in the
absence of such a certificate a non-availability of records certificate (NARC)
along with a co-prisoners' certificate (CPC), namely, two certificates from
freedom fighters who had a proven jail suffering for one year or one certificate B
from a sitting MP or MLA or an ex-MP or ex-MLA. (670-C-D; F-H)

1.2. High Court was not justified in granting relief to the respondent-
writ petitioner. One of the basic requirements was a certificate to the effect
that the jail records were not available unless jail certificate was filed, was
not met with. Thus, the application was defective. However, the pension which C
has already been paid to the respondent should not be recovered. [671-F-Gl

Gurdial Singh v. Union ofIndia and Ors., (2001] 8 SCC 8; WB. Freedom
Fighters' Organisation v. Union of India and Ors., [2004] 7 SCC 716;
Mukundlal Bhandari v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1993) SC 2127 and
Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., [2005) 7 SCC D
605, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3019 of2006.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.2005 of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in LP.A. No. 145/2005. E
B.B. Singh, Anuvrat Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Singh and Sushma Suri for
the Appellant.

Anil Mittal and Dr. Kailash Chand for the Respondent.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

The Union of India calls in question legality of the judgment rendered
by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the G
Letters Patent Appeal filed by it. Learned Single Judge whose order was
assailed before the Division Bench had held that the respondent was entitled
to freedom fighters pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension
Scheme, 1980 (in short 'scheme').

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A The respondent claimed that he had participated in the freedom struggle
of the country and had suffered imprisonment and was, therefore, entitled to
pension under the scheme. Earlier there was a Freedom Fighter's Pension
Scheme, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the '1972 scheme'). The later Scheme
was introduced in 1908. Though initially pension was granted to the
respondent, by order dated 18.12.2000, it was indicated on inquiry that the
B respondent had indicated two different versions while claiming pension under
the Scheme. In the application accompanied by an affidavit filed before the
State of Punjab, the period of imprisonment was indicated to be 20.10.1942 to
20.10.1943. But a different period i.e. 20. l 0.1942 to 15.8.1943 was indicated in
the application and the affidavit filed before the Union. It was also noted that
C the respondent had accepted the above position to be correct, but attributed
the same to his illiteracy. The pension sanctioned to him was cancelled and
he was directed to refund the amour.t which had already been paid to him.
A writ petition was filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It was
initially dismissed. The matter was carried before this Court in Civil Appeal
No. 8388 of 2001. Since the High Court's order was practically unreasoned,
D this Court directed the High Court to hear the matter afresh and dispose of
the same by a reasoned order. The matter was heard afresh. The High Court
noted the submissions of the present appellant that one of the persons who
had certified the imprisonment of the respondent as a co-prisoner was black-
listed. He had issued certificates to a large number of persons. Though the
E High Court accepted that there was difference in the dates indicated in the
two affidavits, it was held to be inconsequential. Accordingly, direction was
given for grant of pension. The matter was carried in appeal by a Letters
Patent Appeal, which as noted above, was dismissed.

In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
F that the application filed by the respondent was incomplete. The requirement
in law is that jail certificates is to be filed. In the instant case no such
certificate was filed and on the contrary certificate from a person whose
credentials were doubtful was tiled. The jail certificate in support of jail
suffering has to be based on official records of the jail. In case jail certificate
G is not available, a certificate called Non-Availability of Records Certificate
(shortly known as NARC) from the concerned authorities has to be tiled. Only
if such certificate is tiled the Co-prisoners Certificate from two co-prisoners
of the enumerated category can be considered.

Though the High Court relied on Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and
H Ors., [200 I] 8 sec 8 to hold that the strict rules of evidence are not to be
U.0.1. v.AVTARSINGH[PASAYAT,J.] 669
applied in such cases, the true parameters to be adopted have been indicated A
in W.B. Freedom Fighters' Organisation v. Union of India and Ors., [2004]
7 SCC 176. Since the authorities on consideration of the material on record
held that the respondent was not entitled to pension, the High Court should
not have interfered in a writ petition, more particularly, when disputed questions
of fact are involved.
B
Learned counsel for the respondent in response submitted that the
requirement in law is imprisonment for six months. If facts stated in either of
the certificates are taken into account, the period indicated is more than six
months. A person who is practically illiterate and is of advanced age cannot
be expected to remember all the details. The High Court has taken note of C
these facts and, therefore, no interference is called for.

The object of the scheme was highlighted by this Court in Mukundlal
Bhandari v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1993) SC 2127. The same reads
as follows:
D
"The object was to honour and where it was necessary also to
mitigate the suffereings of those who had given their all for the
country in the hour of its. need. In fact, many of those who do not
have sufficient income to maintain themselves refuse to take benefit
of it since they consider it as an affront to the sense of patriotism with
which they plunged in the freedom struggle. The spirit of the scheme E
being both to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge the
valuable sacrifices made, it would be contrary to its spirit to convert
it into some kind of a programme of compensation. Yet that may be
the result if the benefit is directed to be given retrospectively whatever
the date the application is made. The Scheme should retain its high F
objective with which it was motivated ... "

Again in Gurdial Singh 's case (supra), this Court observed:

"It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be
covered by the scheme have suffered for the country about half a
century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the imprisonment G
suffered by them. Once the country has decided to honour such
freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining
the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the
purpose and object of the scheme ... "
... H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in Mukundlal 's
and Gurdial Singh 's cases (supra). The genuine freedom fighters deserve to
be treated with reverence, respect and honour. But at the same time it cannnot
be lost sight of the people who had no role to play in the freedom struggle
should not be permitted to benefit from the liberal approach required to be
B adopted in the case of the freedom fighters, most of whom in the normal
course are septuagenarians and octogenarians.

These aspects were highlighted in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State
of Maharashtra and Ors., [2005] 7 SCC 605.

C In W.B. Freedom Fighters' Organisations 's case (supra), it was inter
alia observed as follows:

"2. The Government of India had announced a scheme known as the
Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter called
"the Scheme") under which freedom fighters were to receive pension
as mentioned in the Scheme. Any person who had suffered a minimum
D
imprisonment of six months in the mainland jails before independence
or in the case of SC/ST freedom fighter who had suffered minimum
imprisonment for three months is eligible to receive the pension. The
manner of proving claims is as follows:

"The applicants should furnish the documents indicated below
E
whichever is a!Jplicable in order to prove his claimed suffereings for
grant of pension under the Scheme:

(A) Imprisonment/detention:

Certificate from the jail authority, District Magistrate or the State
F Government concerned, indicating period of sentence awarded, date
of admission, date or release and reasons for release, a non-availability
of records certificate (NARC) from the authorities concerned along
with co-prisoners' certificates (CPC) as under:
(i) Two co-prisoners' certificates from the freedom fighter
G pensioners who had a proven jail suffereing of one year.
Or '.

(ii) One co-prisoner's certificate from a sitting MP or MLA or
from an ex-MP or an ex-MLA specifying his jail period and that
of the applicant (Annexure I in the application form).
H
U.0.1. v.AVTARSINGH[PASAYAT,J.] 671
(B) Documentary evidence by way of court's/government's orders A
proclaiming the applicant as an offender, announcing an award on his
head or for his arrest or ordering his detention. In the absence of such
certificates from official records, a non-availability ofrecords certificate
from the authorities concerned along with a certificate from a prominent
freedom fighter who had undergone imprisonment for a period of at B
least two years or more."
Thus, it is to be seen that the applicant has to furnish a certificate
from the jail authority, District Magistrate or the State authorities
indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of
release and reasons for release and in the absence of such a certificate
a non-availability of records certificate (NARC) along with a co- C
prisoners' certificate (CPC), namely, two certificates from freedom
fighters who had a proven jail suffering for one year or one certificate
from a sitting MP or MLA or an ex-MP or ex-MLA. In case of persons
having gone underground documentary evidence by way of
proclamation of the applicant as an offender, announcing an award for D
his arrest or an order of detention. In the absence of official record
a certificate from a prominent freedom fighter, who had undergone
imprisonment for a period of at least two years, was to be given.
17. Having heard the parties, even presuming that the petition was in
effect for payment of pension, we find that it is not possible for this E
Court to interfere as the Committee has come to a conclusion on the
basis of available material. The decision of the Committee cannot be
said to be perverse or one which no reasonable person could arrive
at. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere."
Above being the position, the High Court was not justified in granting F
relief to the respondent-writ petitioner. One of the basic requirements was a
certificate to the effect that the jail records were not available unless jail
certificate was filed. That, as noted above, was not the case here. On that
score the application was defective.
We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the
learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. However, the pension·which G
has already been paid to the respondent shall not be recovered. It is made
clear that if the respondent files requisite authentic doucments and files a
fresh application, the same shall be duly considered, uninfluenced by the
findings recorded in this case on the factual scenario involved. No costs,

N.J. Appeal allowed H