SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA versus SAWINDER KAUR AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2013] 4 S.C.R. 788 · Decided: 21-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2013) 4 S.C.R. 788 
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 
v. 
SAWINDER KAUR AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 2649 of 2013) 
B 
MARCH 21, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 -
Pension sought under - High Court granted the same, from 
C the year 1973 - Held: The direction relating to entitlement of 
the claimant to the benefit of pension from 1973 is erroneous 
- He could be covered under the Scheme only after the 
circular dated 31.1.1983 whereby he was made entitled to the 
pension - Circular No.814183-FF(P) dated 31.1.1983 issued 
D by Ministry of Home Affairs. 
Husband of respondent No.1 sought freedom fighter 
pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension 
Scheme, 1980 claiming to have participated in freedom 
E struggle by joining Indian National Army. As per 1980 
Scheme, the ex-INA personnel who had not suffered 
formal punishment were not eligible for getting pension, 
but by Circular No.814183-FF(P) dated 31.1.1983, such 
personnel were also admitted to the 1980 Scheme. After 
F intervention of the Court, Government accepted his claim 
and directed that he would be entitled to the pension 
w.e.f. 9.6.1994. The claimant approached High Court 
claiming the pension from the year 1980 i.e. the date of 
the scheme. Single Judge of High Court granted him the 
G pension from the year 1973 i.e. the date of his original 
claim. The order of Single Judge was upheld in writ 
appeal. 
In the present appeal by the State the question for 
H 
788 
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA v. 
789 
SAWINDER KAUR 
consideration was as to which date the claimant was 
A 
entitled to get the pension. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Initially the benefit was not extended to the 
husband of respondent No.1 who was the petitioner as 
B 
he belonged to a different category. After relaxation, the 
same was extended on certain conditions to certain 
categories but her husband was found to be ineligible 
and, hence, the claim was rejected. After direction of the 
High Court to consider his case, the authorities, after C 
considering all the facts including the certificate, 
extended the benefit on the basis of secondary evidence 
as there was no clinching material on record that he was 
covered under the scheme as relaxed vide Circular dated 
31.01.1983. On a perusal of the scheme, it is manifest that 
D 
under no circumstances the respondent would have got 
the benefit from 1973, that is, the date of application, as 
he could only be covered under the scheme after the 
circular dated 31.01.1983. Thus, the direction relating to 
his entitlement from the date of the application is 
erroneous. [Para 9] [794-C-E] 
2. In the instant case, the claim was not allowed on 
E 
F 
the basis of the jail certificate produced by the claimant 
but on the basis of the oral statement of some other 
detenu. Tile competent authority was not satisfied as 
regards the fulfilment of the conditions. There was no 
primary evidence available in the official records as 
required under the scheme to establish the claim that the 
claimant was an Ex- INA member and suffered in New 
Guinea/New Britain Islands to prove his eligibility for G 
pension under the scheme. However, regard being had 
to the totality of the circumstances, he was extended the 
benefit under the scheme as it was a case of benefit of 
doubt. As is evident from the orders passed by the Single 
Judge as well as the Division Bench, there is no 
H 
790 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 4 S.C.R. 
A discussion in that regard but pension has been granted 
from the date of the application in an extremely 
mechanical manner. Such approach is erroneous and it 
has resultantly led to an unsustainable order. [Para 15] 
[796-D-G] 
B 
Mukund Lal Bhandari and Ors. vs. Union of India and 
Ors. (1993) Supp (3) SCC 2:1993 (3) SCR 891; State of 
Orissa vs. Chaudhuri Nayak (Dead) through LRs. and Ors. 
(2010) 8 SCC 796: 2010 (10) SCR 615; Gurdial Singh vs. 
C Union of India (2001) 8 SCC 8: 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 323; 
State of M.P. vs. Devkinandan Maheshwari (2003) 3 SCC 
183; Union of India vs. Avtar Singh (2006) 6 SCC 493: 2006 
(3) Suppl. SCR 666 Union of India vs. Surjit Kaur and Anr. 
(2007) 15 SCC 627; Union of India and Anr. vs. Kaushalya 
Devi (2007) 9 SCC 525: 2007 (2) SCR 745; Government of 
D India vs. K. V. Swaminathan (1997) 10 SCC 190: 1996 (8) 
Suppl. SCR 737; Union of India and Ors. vs. Kashiswar Jana 
(2008) 11 SCC 309: 2008 (5) SCR 927- refe

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