i
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
v.
KAUSHALA YA DEVI
FEBRUARY 15, 2007.
[S. B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]
Freedom Fighter-Pension-Claim-Date from which to be allowed-
Held: When claim is not allowed on the basis of jail certificate but on basis
A
B
of oral statement of some other detenue, pension is to be granted from the C
date of order for granting pension and not from the date of application.
The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was whether
the Freedom Fighters' Pension should be granted to the respondent from the
date of the application or from the date of the order granting the pension.
v
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: On the perusal of the record it is found that the claim was allowed
on the basis of secondary nature of evidence. The claim was not allowed on
D
the basis of jail certificate produced by the claimant but on the basis of oral
statement of some other detenue. Hence, the pension should be granted from E
the date of the order for granting pension and not from the date of the
application. [Para 5) (7 46-E]
Mukand Lal Bhandari v. Union of India & Ors., AIR (1993) SC 2127,
distinguished.
Government of India v. K. V. Swaminathan, (1997) 10 SCC 190, relied
on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 783 of2007.
F
From the final Judgment and Order dated 5.1.2005 of the High Court of G
Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CWP No. 143/2004.
Vikas Singh, A.S.G., Sunita Sharma and Sushma Suri for the Appellants.
Vinay K. Khuthiala, Vandana Khuthiala and Ashok K. Mahajan for the
745
fl
746
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007) 2 S.C.R.
A Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. I. Leave granted.
B
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Himachal
Pradesh High Court dated 5.1.2005 in Writ Petition No.143 of2004.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. The
short question in this case is whether the Freedom Fighters' Pension should
be granted to the respondent from the date of the application or the date of
C the order granting the pension.
D
4. It •has been held by this Court in Government of India v. K. V.
Swaminathan [1997] IO SCC 190 that where the claim is allowed on the basis
of benefit of doubt, the pension should be granted not from the date of the
application but from the date of the order.
5. In the present case, we have perused the record and found that it is
stated th~rein that the claim was allowed on the basis of secondary nature
of evidence. In other words, the claim was not allowed on the basis of jail
'·
certificate produced by the claimant but on the basis of oral statement of
E some other detenue. Hence, we are of the opinion that the pension should
be granted from the date of the order and not from the date of the application;
6. U:amed counsel for respondent has relied on the judgment of this
Court in Mukand Lal Bhandari v. Union of India & Ors., AIR (1993) SC 2127.
F
7. In our opinion that decision is distinguishable as it has been stated
therein that the pension cannot be granted from any date prior to the
application. In our opinion this does not mean that it cannot be granted from
a date subsequent to the application.
8. For the reasons given above this appeal is allowed. The impugned
G judgment is set aside and it is directed that the pension will be granted only
from the date of the order for granting pension and not from the date of the
application.
N.J.
Appeal allowed.
H
Lex