UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus KASHISWAR JANA

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 927 · Decided: 31-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 927 
-f 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v 
KASHISWAR JANA 
(Civil Appeal No. 2259 of 2008) 
MARCH 31, 2008 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
...I 
Freedom Fighter's Pensio.n: 
Date of entitlement to pension - Application for freedom 
fighter's pension rejected by Central Government- High Court c 
in writ petition allowing the claim on benefit of doubt - HELD: 
Pension is to be granted from date of order of High Court and 
not from date of filing of application. 
The respondent claiming himself to be a freedom 
D 
fighter, filed an application on 28. 7 .1981 for grant of 
freedom fighter's pension. His claim was rejected by the 
Central Government. But, his writ petition was allowed by 
single Judge of the High Court on 4.8.1993. The Letters 
Patent Appeal of the Government was dismissed and the 
petition for special leave was also dismissed as time E 
barred. Thereafter the respondent claimed the pension 
from 28.7.1981, the date of the application; whereas the 
stand of the Government was that since benefit of doubt 
was granted to the respondent, he was entitled to the 
pension from 4.8.1993, the date of the order of the High 
Court. The High Court did not accept the stand of the 
F 
Government, and the Government filed the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: In view of the decision of this Court in 
Kaushalya Devi's* case, the pension is to be granted from G 
4.8.1993, the date of the order of the High Court. (para-8) 
[930-E-F] 
-t 
*Kausha/aya Devi 2007(9) SCC 525 - relied on. 
927 
H 
A 
928 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
M.L. Bhandan vs. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 2127 -
cited. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2259 of 2008. 
B 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 22/3/2005 of 
the High Court of Calcutta at Calcutta in W.P. No. 9810 (W)/ 
2000. 
T.S. Doabia, Lata Krishnamurthy, Ashok Kumar Singh, 
Naresh Kumar Gaur, Surinder Dutt Sharma, B. Swaraj, Anil 
C Kumar Tandale, Sushma Suri, Rekha Pandey, Manoj Saxena, 
Rajnish Singh, Rahul Shukla, T.V. George, N.R. Choudhary and 
Somnath Mukherjee for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned 
Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowing the Writ Petition 
filed by the respondent. The controversy lies within a very narrow 
compass. The respondent claimed to be a freedom fighter and 
E claimed freedom fighter's pension. The application in this regard 
was filed on 281h July, 1981. The application was rejected by 
the Central Government on 29.1.1993. A Writ Petition was filed 
before the Calcutta High Court questioning correctness of the 
order of the Single Judge. The writ petition was allowed and the 
F 
present appellants were directed to release pension to the 
respondent. 
3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the Division Bench 
was moved in a Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed. A 
G special leave petition was also filed before this Court which was 
rejected as barred by time. The question that arose was the 
date from which the respondent was entitled to pension. 
Appellants released the pension with effect from 4th August, 1993 
when the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed by 
H the learned Single Judge. Respondent claimed pension from 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. KASHISWAR JANA 
929 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
·• 
the date of filing of the application. According to him he is entitled 
A 
to pension from 28. 7 .1981 when the application was filed by 
him. Reference was made to the decision of this Court in M.L. 
Bhandari v. Union of India [AIR 1993 SC 2127]. 
4. Stand of the present appellants was that since the claim 
B 
of the respondent could not be decided till 1993 because of the 
,( 
non co-operative attitude of the State Government regarding 
supply of requisite information. In any event, the benefit of doubt 
was granted to the respondent and in line with the order passed 
by the High Court earlier pension was granted from the date of 
order i.e. 4th August, 1993. The High Court did not accept the c 
stand. 
5. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant 
submitted that the view of the High Court is clearly untenable 
because the question whether respondent was entitled to D 
pension and whether he fulfilled the guidelines was under 
,.. 
examination. Definite material was not placed by the State 
Government an

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