MAHENDER SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 1098 · Decided: 27-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
A 
B 
[2010] 11 S.C.R. 1098 
MAHENDER SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
(Civil Appeal No. 5215 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND R.M. LODHA JJ.] 
Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 -
Para 9 -
Claim of pension under the Scheme -
C Recommended by State Screening Committee - Denied by 
Central Government - Propriety of - Held: The claimant failed 
to establish his claim for the pension in terms of the Scheme 
- Recommendation of the pension by the State Government 
is not final or conclusive - It is for the Central Government to 
D make further inquiry in the matter and to take a final decision 
- Freedom Fighters - Pension. 
The appellant filed an application for pension under 
Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The 
E State Screening Committee recommended the case of the 
appellant for payment of pension. The Central 
Government in the absence of any authenticated records, 
particularly, the details about "underground suffering" for 
a minimum period of six months and finding that the 
Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by a veteran 
F freedom fighter, was not sufficient, rejected the claim of 
the appellant. 
Against the order rejecting the pension, the appellant 
filed a writ petition which was allowed by the Single 
G Judge of the High Court. Challenging the judgment of the 
Single Judge, the State filed an LP.A., which was allowed 
by the Division Bench of the High Court. Therefore, the 
instant appeal was filed. 
H 
1098 
MAHENDER SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 
1099 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The appellant has failed to establish his 
claim for freedom fighter pension in terms of the 
Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The 
appellant laid his claim only on the ground that he had 
remained underground for more than four years. There 
are two modes of providing the evidence for the same. 
The first one is by producing documentary evidence and 
A 
B 
the second where the official records are not forthcoming 
due to their non-availability, the claim is to be proved by C 
certificates from the veteran freedom fighters who have 
themselves undergone imprisonment for five years or 
more. In the case of the appellant, he asserted that the 
official records are not traceable due to non-availability 
and submitted a certificate from a veteran freedom fighter. 
[Paras 5 and 10] [1104-E-F; 1106-C] 
D 
1.2 The appellant, in his application under the 
Scheme, had merely indicated that he remained 
underground from the year 1942 to 1946. He did not 
indicate the details of the case in which he had gone 
E 
underground. Though the appellant has placed the 
record of proceedings which show that the relevant 
records were not available with them, the fact remains 
that the said Non-availability of Records Certificate 
(NARC) did not indicate the date of disposal of the case 
F 
as well as the relevant provisions of the Penal Code. h1 
such circumstances, it is not clear whether the said case, 
if any, was related to freedom struggle and what was the 
duration of the claimed suffering of the appellant. Though 
the appellant was given an opportunity to furnish the 
G 
name of the co-accused in the same case, who are 
presently getting pension on the basis of the case on 
which the appellant had based his claim, the appellant 
was unable to furnish such details. [Para 7] [1105-C-E] 
H 
1100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
1.3 Insofar as the Personal Knowledge Certificate 
(PKC) of the veteran freedom fighter is concerned, it is 
the stand of the Government of India that the same is not 
acceptable as the certifier was in jail for most of the period 
of the claimed suffering of the appellant. In view of the 
B same, it could not be possible for the certifier to verify the 
period as well as ·the reasons of the claimed suffering of 
the appellant based on his the personal knowledge of the 
veteran freedom fighter. [Para 8] [1105-F-G] 
2. Though the State Advisory Committee and the 
C State Government recommended the case of the 
appellant, such recommendation is not final or conclusive 
and it is for the authority of the Central Government 
granting such pension to make further inquiry in the 
matter in terms of various conditions prescribed in the 
D Scheme and to take a final decision. [Para 9] [1105-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
5215 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 30.01.2006 of the 
E High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA 

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