LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. versus NAMDEO ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 14 S.C.R. 245 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. v. NAMDEO ETC. ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos. 7899-790112013) SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] A B Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme - Claim for freedom fighter's pension - Under particular scheme - The scheme providing for furnishing certain documents to prove the claim C - The claims were based on affidavits and no other material was furnished - Rejection of claim by State on the ground of non-furnishing of the required documents - Writ petition by the claimants -High Court directed grant of the pension - Held: When the Scheme itself specifies requirement of D furnishing certain documents, normally those documents should be produced to prove the claim - However, this requirement can be relaxed, if there is any other cogent material available to satisfy the claim - But discretion of relaxing the criteria is with the State and not the High Court E while exercising writ jursidiction - In the facts of the case, since the State rejected the claim and the claimants failed to make out any case for dispensation of the requirements, the order of the State cannot be found fault with - High Court could not have invalidated the order of State. Evidence - Standard of proof - To prove claim for freedom fighters' pension - Held: The standard of proof in such cases is not thetest of beyond reasonable doubt, but it should be pri,· ciple of probability. The appellant-State had extended benefits to freedom fightes of different categories by its pension schemes for 'Underground Freedom Fighters', participants of 'Hyderabad Liberation Movement' and 245 F G H 246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. A '!Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme' in the years 1982, and 1992 and on 4.7.1995 respectively. The respondents made their claim under the scheme for 'Underground Freedom Fighters'. Their claim was 8 denied by the State. They filed writ petitions claiming that they took part in the freedom movement and hence were 1~ntitled to the benefits which the Government had announced with the proclaimation of 'Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme'. High Court allowed their petitions. C Hence the present appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The claims of the freedom fighters are to be dealt with, with sympathy. The authorities are not to 0 go by the test of "beyond reasonable doubt" and standard of proof based on this principle has to be discarded. On the contrary, the principle of probability is to be applied and eschewing the technicalities, the approach should be to uphold the entitlement. When E scheme itself mentions the documents which are required to be produced by the applicant, normally those documents need to be produced to prove the claim. [Para 19) [260-B-D] 2. However, there may be cases where because of F long lapse of time or other circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, it is almost impossible or cumbersome to procure and produce all the stipulated documents. In such cases, the claim cannot be summarily rejected for want of documents, even though as per the G Pension Scheme, such documents are to be provided. To meet such eventualities, following principle needs to be added. On the basis of evidence/documents/material submitted by the applicant, the Government should examine whether it is a genuine case and the documents H produced establish that the applicant had participated in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. NAMDEO ETC. 247 the freedom movement. It should be done applying the A principle of probability. If the material/documents produced are otherwise convincing, the Government in appropriate cases may not insist on strict compliance with all the requirements stated in the Scheme. These principles show a clear path as to how the claims under B the Freedom Fighters Scheme are to be examined. [Paras 19 and 20] (260-F-H; 261-A-C] 3. The High Court exercising writ jurisdiction does not sit in judgment over the decision of the State Government like an appellate authority. The order of the C State Government is to be examined applying the parameters of judicial review which are available in examining the validity of such orders. Even if order is found to be perverse or flawed, the High Court can, at the most, remit back to the State Government to reconsider D the case. [Para 19] (260-0-F] 4. In the present cases, except the affidavits of the two freedom fighters, n
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.