LexGURDIAL SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- ... GURDfAL SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 [M.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972 :· Pension-Application-Grant of from a subsequent date-Claim for grant from the date of application-But Government cancelling the grant of pension- Held not justified-Appellant entitled to pension from the date of application- However, in the facts of the case ends of justice would be met, if pension is granted, from March, 1996 when appellant filed the first writ petition. Freedom fighter pension-Rejection of claim-On the ground of.failure A B c to prove the claim-Held, such claim is required to be determined on the basis D of probabilities-Not on the touchstone of test of 'beyond reasonable doubt' - A presumption is required to be drawn in favour of.freedom fighter unless the same is rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence. Petitioner claimed grant of pension on 13.7.1973 under Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972. His claim was rejected by Union of India. E Appellant's writ petition against the rejection was disposed of, directing the respondents to redecide the case in the light of the documents produced in the High Court. State of Punjab granted provisional pension to the petitioner which was to be in addition to the pension granted by Union of India. Thereafter, Union oflndia granted provisional pension w.e.f. 29.4.1998 F in addition to the pension granted by the State Government. Appellant filed another writ petition seeking pension w.e.f. the date he made the application i.e. 13.3.1973, which was allowed by High Court directing the respondents to consider the claim of the appellant. Union of India thereafter cancelled the pension earlier granted, on the ground that pension had been wrongly granted since appellant had not been able to prove his case as discrepancies and contradictions were found in his claim. Appellant's writ petition against the same was dismissed by High Court on the ground that there was disputed question of fact. Hence this appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court 323 G H 324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A HELD : 1.1. Pension under the scheme should be made payable from the date on which the application is made whether it is accompanied by necessary proof of eligibility or not. However, in view the lapse of time and peculiar circumstances of the case, the appella~t is not granted pension w.e.f. 12.3.1973 as claimed and the ends of justice would be met if the B appellant is granted pension with effect from March, 1996 when he was forced to file the first writ petition. [328-F; 329-F; G] 1.2. After granting the pension to the appellant, the respondents were not justified in rejecting his claim on the basis of material which already existed, justifying the grant of pension in his favour. The appellant C has, unnecessarily, been dragged to litigation for no fault of his. [329-E] Mohan Singh v. Union of India decided by High Court on I.6.I995, referred to. 2. Keeping in mind the object of the scheme, the concerned authorities D are required that in appreciating the scheme for the benefit of freedom fighters a rationale and not a technical approach is required to be adopted. The contradictions and discrepancies cannot be held to be material which could be made the basis of depriving the appellant of his right to get the pension. The case of the appellant has been disposed of by ignoring the E mandate of law and the scheme. The standard of proof required in such cases is not such standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of the parties. The case of ·the claimants under this scheme is required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touch-stone of the test of 'beyond F reasonable doubt'. Once on the basis of the evid_ence it is probabilised that the claimant had suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country during the freedom stru~gle, a presumption is ~equired to be drawn in his f~vour unless the same is rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable evi~ence. [327-H; 329-D; 328-G; 329-A; B] G Mukand Lal Bhandari & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1993] Suppl. 3 sec 2, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6718 of 2001. 1 From the Judgment and Order dated 16.3.2001 of the Punjab and Haryana H High Court in C.W.P. No. 3913 of 2001. - ·- \
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.