R. NARAYANAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 720 · Decided: 25-10-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. NATARAJAN, N.D. OJHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
R. NARAYANAN 
--
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 25, 1989 
B 
[S. NATARAJAN AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] 
Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme: Para 4, Cl. J(e)-Freedom 
Fighter-Permanent loss of vision of one eye-Denial of pension-
Validity of. 
c 
Words and Phrases: 'Permanent incapacitation'-lnterpretation 
of-Para 4, Cl. 3(e), Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme. 
Clause 3(e) of Para 4 of the Swataintrata Sainik Samman Pension 
Scheme of the Government of India enti1tles a freedom fighter to pension 
for having become permanently incapacitated during firing or lathi 
D 
charge in the freedom struggle. 
The appellant applied for grant olf pension on the ground that he 
had suffered permanent loss of vision in his left eye due to brutal lathi 
charge by the police against freedom fi:~hters. His claim of permanent 
loss of vision in the left eye was duly certified by Government doctors. 
E 
The District Collector after making a detailed enquiry, .certified the 
claim of the appellant as a bona fide one and recommended his case for 
grant of pension. The State Government also appended their recom-
mendation. The Ministry of Home Affairs, however, declined to grant 
pension on the view that loss of vision in one eye did not amount to 
permanent incapacitation. 
F 
A single Judge of the High Court dismissed appellant's writ peti-
tion and a writ appeal against the said order was also dismissed by a 
Division Bench. 
In this appeal by special leave, it was contended for the respon-
' 
G 
dents that the incapacitation under clause 3(e) must not only be per-
manent but it must also be a total one, :and since the appellant had not 
lost vision in both the eyes the incapacitation, though permanent, was 
only partial and not total; and that the petitioner had not been able to 
produce any documentary evidence from official records of the relevant 
period in support of his claim. 
H 
'--
720 
-.. 
R. NARA YANAN v. U.0.1. 
721 
Allowing the appeal, 
A 
HELD: 1.1 The words used in clause 3(e) of Para 4 of the Pension 
Scheme are "permanently incapacitated" and not 'permanently totally 
incapacitated". The measure of test thus laid down by the clause is the 
permanent nature of the incapacitation and not the total nature of the 
incapacitation. If clause (e) were to be interpreted to include total 
B 
incapacitation then a freedom fighter who has lost a leg or an arm 
cannot claim payment of pension on the basis of permanent incapacita-
tion inasmuch as the incapacitation suffered by him is not of both the 
legs or both the arms. It would be height of injustice to freedom fighters 
to construe clause (e) in the said manner. [724F; 72SA-Bi 
1.2 In view of the ~ertificate issued to him by the Government 
doctors that the appellant had suffered permanent incapacitation of his 
c 
left eye due to lathi blows received by him during the freedom struggle 
and the State Government authorities having, after due enquiry, 
accepted the bona fides of the appellant's claim and recommended his 
D 
case for grant of pension the respondents were not justified in refusing 
to grant him pension under clause (e) of the Scheme. [724G, 726C, 725E] 
2. No one can really expect official r,!'cords to have been pre-
served for a period of 40 years to prove the treatment given to a freedom 
fighter for the injuries sustained by him during the freedom struggle. 
E 
Hence, the objection relating to non-production-Of official records of the 
releyant period by the appellant fo prove the sustainment of injury by 
him ,deserves outright rejection as well as outright condemnation. [726B-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4496 
~~. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.4.1986 of the Madras High 
Court in Writ Appeal No. 411of1986. 
C.K. S\}charita for the Appellant.· 
B. Dutta, Additional Solicitor General, (N.P.), P.P. Singh and 
Mrs. Sushma Suri for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
Delay condoned. 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
722 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties. The appellant, 
who is a freedom fighter was refused the grant of pension under the 
Swatantrata Sainik Samman Scheme by the Ministry of Home Affairs, 
Union of India and hence the appellant approached the High Court for 
the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus. The appellant's writ 
petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge and the writ appeal 
against the said order was also dismissed by 

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