MUKUND LAL BHANDARI AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 891 · Decided: 14-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
l\IUKUND LAL BHANDARI AND ORS. 
"· 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
[P.8. SA \VANT A!)ID G.N. RAY, JJ.] 
MAY 14, 1993 
Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme .1972-Swamamra Sainik Samman 
Pension Sclre111e-Delay in applica1ion, anti retrospectil'ity in pa~·mem of 
pension-Held, object being to assist and l1011011rfreedo111figluers, delay wo11/cl 
1101 affect e111i1/e111em-Pensio11 payable .fiwn tire date of application. 
The petitioners (late) freedom fighters participated in the Ar)·a Samaj 
Movement in the late 1930 s, in the erstwhile Nizam State of' Hyderabad. 
A 
n 
c 
The Freedo~ Fighters Pension Scheme 1972, wlten it was framed, 
provided for payment of pension to freedom fighters who had suffered a 
D 
minimum imprisonment of six months and whose gross income did not exceed 
Rs. 5,000. From August 1980, the Scheme was extended to all freedom fighters 
irrespective of their income and as a token of honour (Samman) to them. In 
1985, it was extended to those who participated in the Arya Samaj Movement 
of' I 936-39 which took place in the forme.r Hyderabad State. 
In the writ petition before this Court it was contended for the Union of 
India thatthe petitioners had not produced the required proof to demonstrate 
eligibilit)•; that they had filed their applications after the prescribed date; and 
that, in an)' event, they would be entitled to the pension only from the date the)' 
produced the required documen~r)· proof and not an earlier date. 
Allowing the petition, this Court 
E 
F 
HELD : 1. What'loever the date on which the claimants make the 
applications, even where it is after the prescribed date, the benefit should he 
made available to them. The date prescribed in any past or future notice G 
inviting the claims, should be regarded more as a matter of administrative 
convenience than as a rigid time limit. (896-F) 
Those. eligible for the pension may be scattered, or may hal'e no 
knowledge of the prescribed date. Moreo\•er, if the scheme has been intro-
891 
H 
A 
St7PRE\1E COl.'.RT REPORTS 
[1993] 3 S.C.R .. ~ 
dul:ed with the genuine desire to assist and honour these who had gi\'cn the 
hest part of" their life for the l:ountr_y. it ill-beha\'es the government to raise 
picas of limitation against sud1 daims. 
2. The date on which the required p1·1mf is furnished should make no 
ditl"erenl:c to the entitlement of the benefit under the Sl:heme. It is unrealistic 
H 
and demeaning to the object of the scheme, to fix a rigid time limit for proof 
of entitlement. Once the application is made, e\'cn if it is unaccompanied by 
the requisite eligibility data, the date on which it is made should he accepted 
as the datcofthe prefcrmentofthedaim whate\'erthedateon whk-h the proof 
of eligibility is furnished. (897-C) 
c 
D 
3. The pension will he payable from the date on which the original 
application is rccei\'ed whether the application is recci\'ed whether the 
application is filed with or without the rel1uisitc C\'idence. The sanction of the 
pension would, howc\·er, be subject to the requisite proof in support of the 
claim. (898-H) 
There is no doubt that if the object of the scheme is to benefit the freedom 
fighters, theoretical!~·, they should be entitled to the benefit from the date the 
scheme came into existence. Rut the spirit of the.scheme being both to assist 
and honour the need~· and acknowledge the \'aluablc sacrifices made, it would 
be contra1·y to its spirit to con\'ert it into some kind of a programe of 
E 
compensation. (897-F) 
F 
Moreover, since the benefit of the scheme is a\'ailable irrespective of the 
date on which the application is made, it would not be ad,·isable to extend the 
benefit retl·ospecti\'ely. (898-C) 
4. Applications and e\·idence produced in supportol'the claim should be 
scrutinised and disposed of, in any case~ within three months of their receipt. 
(898-G) 
Duli Chand". V nion o.f India. W .P. No. 1190 of 1989 and Surja and Ors. 
<; 
''·Union of India & Anr. W.P.'No. 75 of1991, referred to. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Pentilion (c) No. 153 of I 992. 
H 
(\Jnder Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
-
M.L BHANDARI i·. UNION OF INDIA [SA WANT, JJ 
893 
Mahabir Singh, R.K. Khanna and R.P. Singh (NP) for the Petitioners. 
D.P. Gupta, Solicitor General, Ms. A. Subshini (NP) and Ms. Niranjana 
Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
B 
SA WANT, J. This is a petition by some freedom fighters and defendants of 
other freedom fighters cla

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