SURJA AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 116 · Decided: 13-09-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
A 
SURJA AND OTHERS 
v. 
UNION 
OF INDIA AND 
ANR. 
~ 
. 
SEPTEMBER 13, 1991 
B 
[RANGANATH MISRA, CJ AND P.B. SAWANT, J.) 
,, 
Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972 (Swatantrata Sainik Sam-
mon. Pension Scheme, 1980)--Pension under-Eligibility indicated., 
Constitution of India, 195~Artic/e 32---=Writ Petition claiming 
-)<. 
C freedom fighters' pension-Arya Samaj movement-Whether a part of 
freedom strngg/e--Freedom fighters' pensiow-WltetherArya Samajists en-
titled. 
In the Application under Article 32 of the Constitution by 55 per-
sons claiming the benefit of.the scheme of pension for Freedom Fighters, 
the petitioners contended that tjiey had joined the Arya Samaj movement 
D in the late 1930s within the erstwhile Nizam's State of Hyderabad and 
were convicted under different provisions of the criminal law and sen-
tenced to various terms of imprisonment; that the Arya Samaj movement 
had been equated with the freedom struggle and the benefit of tile pension 
~ 
scheme was admissible to those who had participated in the movement. 
:·· 
I 
-
T 
' 
· E 
The respondents while not disputing the assertion of the petitioners 
that the Union of India has accepted the Arya Samaj movement to be a 
part of the freedom struggle, has disputed the entitlement of pension in 
the case of most of the petitioners. 
Allowing the petition, this Court, 
F 
HELD: 1. Freedom Fighters' "Pension Scheme of 1972 which was 
renamed as "Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980" indicates: "A 
person who has suffered a minimum imprisonment for six months in the 
mainland jails before independence in the struggle for independence is 
eligible to be admitted to the benefits of the pension." Each of the petitioners 
had been c<invicted and was ordered to suffer imprisonment of more than six 
G months. While they were undergoing sentence, without their praying for any 
remission, a general amnesty was declared by the then Nizam on his birthday 
and the sentence was reduced and the petitioners were set free. (118 E-F,D] 
2. In the facts of the case it would be appropriate to hold that each 
of the petitioners satisfied the condition for earning the benefit of pension 
and the fact that while undergoing sentence which was for a period beyond 
If 
116 
SURJA v. U.0.1 
(RANGANA1H 
MISRA, CJ.] 
117 
six months remission bad been granted and they were let off earlier would· A 
J, not take away their right to earn pension. [118F] 
Duli Chand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.No. 1190/89; dated, 
July 16, 1991 by the Supreme Court of India, followed. 
' ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (c) No. 75 0(1991. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
R.P. Singh for the Petitioners. 
-
G. Ramaswamy, Attorney General, A.K. Srivastava and Ms. A. 
B 
Subhashini (N.P.) for the Respondents. 
C 
"' 
• 
' 
I 
• 
' 
The Judgment, of the Court was delivered by, 
·' 
RANGANATH MISRA, CJ. This is an application under Article 32 
of the Constitution by 55 persons'-"b.oth men and women -
claiming the 
benefit of the scheme of pension for Freedom Fighters. , · .. 
' 
_ -t 
It is the common contention of the petitioners that they had joined 
the Arya Samaj movement in the late 1930s within the erstwhile Nizam's 
State of Hyderabad and each of them had been convicted under different 
provisions of the criminal law then preyailing within the Nizam's State and 
sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. In the case of most of them E 
the term of imprisonment was around two years. They maintained that the 
Arya Samaj movement has been equated with the freedom struggle and the 
benefit of the pension scheme is admissible to those who had participated 
-i 
in the movement as Arya Samajists. According to them, in the prime of 
.youth the petitioners had been motivated by the call of Mahatma Gandhi, 
the Father of the Nation and leaders like the late Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr. F 
Rajendra Prasad and others and had given up their home and hearth and 
had joined the agitation within the Nizam's State and suffered the conse-
quences. Since. their claim for pension had not been accepted by the 
Government of India they have applied to this Court for appropriate direc-
tion for being admitted to the benefits of the scheme. 
: 
G 
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents by 
Under Secretary Alam in the Ministry of Home Affairs· who while not 
disputing the assertion of the petitioners that the Union of India had ac-
cepted the Arya Samaj
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.