UNION OF INDIA versus A. ALAGAM PERUMAL KONE & OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 3 S.C.R. 796 · Decided: 22-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
796
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
   [2021] 3 S.C.R. 796
796
UNION OF INDIA
v.
A. ALAGAM PERUMAL KONE & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No.680 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 22, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Freedom Fighter Pension: Claim for pension under
Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme – First respondent at
first instance had applied for grant of pension in the year 1997
claiming that he was underground during the Quit India Movement
of 1942 i.e. during the period from August, 1942 up to a period of
more than six months – Non-Availability of Records Certificate
(NARC) from the Government was not produced along with the first
application and merely a certificate, certified by the C.J.M.,
Madurai, was produced – The first application, which was
forwarded to the appellant, was without any specific
recommendation – Claim was considered and rejected – The said
order became final and the same was not questioned – Nearly after
13 years of such rejection, first Respondent again claimed pension
under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme on the plea
of his imprisonment for more than six months for participating in
the Quit India Movement – In the said application, he stated that he
was imprisoned for more than six months i.e. from 05.01.1944 to
05.07.1944, which was in variance to the period which he has
mentioned in the first application – Without issuing notice and
without giving opportunity to the appellant to file counter affidavit,
High Court disposed of petition by granting pension – On appeal,
held: Claim of the first Respondent was under the scheme, notified
by the appellant-Government – The scheme prescribes to file certain
documents to authenticate the imprisonment of a claimant as a
freedom fighter – Whether the claimant fulfills the criteria or not, it
is for the competent authority to examine it – Moreover, when the
application of the first Respondent was already rejected in the year
1997, when such rejection order became final, it was not open for
the first Respondent to make a claim for second time for pension
again by way of fresh application – When such serious factual
disputes emerge for consideration, the High Court ought not to have
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
797
disposed of the petition filed by the Respondent without even issuing
notice and giving opportunity to file counter affidavit to rebut the
allegations made by the appellant.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Whether the claimant fulfills the criteria or not,
it is for the competent authority to examine it. Even before the
application is considered by the competent authority, in exercise
of powers of judicial review, the High Court should not have issued
any directions for grant of pension. In this case, it is also to be
noticed that earlier the claim of the 1st Respondent is already
rejected and the said order has become final. After perusal of the
order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench,
we are of the view that no valid reasons have been assigned to
grant relief to the 1st Respondent for grant of pension. It appears
that the 1st Respondent has not disclosed his earlier rejection by
producing the earlier orders while making the application for the
second time before the appellant and also before the High Court.
[Para 25][803-E-G]
2. In any event, when such serious factual disputes emerge
for consideration, the High Court ought not to have disposed of
the petition filed by the Respondent without even issuing notice
and giving opportunity to file counter affidavit to rebut the
allegations made by the appellant. [Para 26][803-H; 804-A]
3. In the instant case, the appellant stands on a better
footing, for the reason that although the application made by the
1st Respondent on 10.04.1997 was rejected and the said order
has become final, he again approached the appellant with the same
request. Even before the Competent Authority considers the
application, the 1st Respondent approached the High Court by
filing Writ Petition and the High Court, not only entertained the
petition, but disposed of the same without even notice and
opportunity of filing counter affidavit to the appellant. Even the
Division Bench of High Court has not considered various grounds
raised by the appellant, while confirming the order of the Single
Judge. [Paras 28, 29][804-D-F]
4. It may be true that the 1st Respondent is getting pension
as per the scheme, mooted by the State, but, at the same time, to
UNION OF INDIA v. A. ALAGAM 

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