JAGDAMBA DEVI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 481 · Decided: 31-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017)1S.C.R.481 
JAGDAMBA DEVI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 12~0 of2017) 
JANUARY 31, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Freedom Fighter: 
Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension ·Scheme, 1980 -
Dependent family pension - Benefit under the Scheme - Freedo111 
fighter, accused and arrested in a cri111inal case e111anating jro111 
freedom struggle 111ove111ent - Claim of pension by widow -
Eligibility-Held: Freedom fighter did not meet the eligibility criteria 
of either being an undergroul}d within the meaning of the Scheme 
for more than six months or undergoing .sentence for more than six 
111onths and as such he was ineligible - Being 'underground' is not 
synonymous to being as 'absconder' - Further, there were 
discrepancies and ambiguities relating to the documents and also 
due to 11011-production of Non-Availability of Re~ord Certificate, 
benefit of the Scheme could not be extended to the widow - High 
Court rightly held that the Central Government was well with.hi its 
power to hold that the freedom fighter was ineligible to seek pension 
under the Scheme - Thus, the impugned order does not call for 
interference. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Based on the verification of the documents, in 
its order dated 15.11.2006, the Central Government stated that 
the jail suffering of 'HK' was only for thirteen days whereas the 
minimum jail suffering required to become eligible for pension is 
six months. There was neither any document nor any report that 
'HK' was absconding for more than six months. That being 
"11ndergro11nd" is not synonymous to being an "absconder". [Para 
12] (488-B-C] 
1.2 As per Swatantratt1 S(linik Sanmum Pension Scheme, 1980, 
the claim of "U111lergrou111lSuffering" is considered subject to 
481 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
482 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 1 S.C.R. 
furnishing of the stated evidence. Where primary evidence viz. 
records of the relevant period are not available, 'Non-Availability 
of Record Certificate (NARC)' from the concerned authority, in 
the form of secondary evidence becomes a pre-requisite for 
claiming "underground suffering". The instructions require the 
State Government to issue NARC only after due verification from 
the concerned sources. In the case of appellant, Central 
Government stated _that the appellant did not produce any 
acceptable record-based evidence duly verified by the State 
Government to establish the claimed '/ail' or 'underground 
sufferings' of 'HK'. She also did not produce NARC from the 
competent authority as required and that thus, the eligibility 
criteria was not met. {Para 13) [488-C-D, G-H; 489-A) 
1.3 That Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scl1eme, 1980 
is a document based Scheme and the documents required for 
eligibility for Samman Pension as mentioned in the Scheme are 
to be produced by the applicant in support of his claimed suffering, 
duly verified and recommended by the concerned State 
Government. Due to the discrepancies and ambiguities relating 
to the documents and also due to non-production of NARC, 
benefit of the Scheme could not be extended to the appellant. It 
is not possible for this Court to scrutinize the documents as to 
its sufficiency or otherwise. [Para 16) [490-D-E) 
State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Ragh11nath Gajanan 
Waingankar (2004) 6 SCC 584 : [2004) 3 Suppl. 
SCR 365 - relied on. 
1.4 In C.W.J.C. No.9903 of 2001, the Single Judge made 
certain observations to the effect that 'HK' was absconding" and 
that tbe same was sufficient under the provisions of the Scheme 
to declare him "as remaining underground for more tfran six 
months", thereby making him entitled for the pension. As rightly 
observed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the said 
observation in C.W.J.C. No.9903 of 2001 was without reference 
to the Scheme. In C.W.J.C. No.9903 of 2001, the Single Judge 
only remanded the matter to the Central Government for 
reconsideration, giving liberty to the Central Government to 
reappraise the documents. Upon reappraisal of the matter, the 
Central Government clearly pointed out that 'HK' did not meet 
JAGDAMBA DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
the eligibility criteria of either being an underground within the 
meaning of the Scheme for more than six months or undergoing 
sentence for more than six months and as such be was ineligible. 
The High Court rightly held that the Central Government was 
well within its power to bold that 'HK' w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.