UNION OF INDIA versus K. INDRASENA REDDY AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 686 · Decided: 02-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. . 
K. .JNDRASENA REDDY AND ANR. 
APRIL 02, 2007 
B 
[S. B. SINHAANDMARKANDEYKATJU,JJ.] 
Freedom Fighters-Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 
1980-Clause 2.3-Pension under-Claim for-By Freedom Fighter-
Entitlement to-Held: Claimant not entitled to pension under the scheme 
C since he failed to establish that he fulfilled the eligibility criteria/conditions 
under the scheme. 
Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 was floated by 
appellant-Government. A person was entitled to the benefit of the Scheme 
D provided he fulfilled the criteria laid down therein. One of the criteria was 
that the person on account of participatioe in the freedom struggle had to 
remain underground for more than six months. The criteria was subject to 
the conditions that the person was proclaimed offender or he was one on whom 
an award of arrest was announced or for whose detention an order of arrest 
was issued but not served. The respondent applied for pension under the 
E Scheme claiming to be failing under above-mentioned criteria. The same was 
rejected. The claim was again reconsidered at the direction oflligh Court. 
The claim was dismissed by appropriate Authority holding that he has not 
established that he fulfilled eligibility criteria. On a Writ Petition, Single 
Judge of High Court upheld the finding of appropriate Authority. In Writ 
F 
G 
H 
Appeal Division Bench of High Court held that the respondent was eligible 
for pension under the Scheme as the record revealed that an order of detention 
had been issued against 98 persons and the respondent was one of them. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. A Person is entitled to the benefit of the Samman Pension 
Scheme provided he fulfills the criteria laid down therein. One of the criteria 
laid down in the said scheme was that the concerned person on account of his 
participation in freedom struggle, had remained as underground for more 
than six months. However, the same would be subject to the conditions laid 
686 
+ 
\ 
... 
-
U.0.1. v. K. INDRASENA REDDY (S. B. SINHA, J.] 
687 
down therein, namely, (i) he has to be a proclaimed offender; or (ii) he is one A 
on whom an award for arrest was announced; or (iii) he is one for whose 
detention, an order of arrest was issued but not served. [Para 10] [690-B-C) 
2. Respondent no. 1 has not been able to establish that he fulfillerl the 
eligibility criteria/conditions laid down under the said scheme. The 
appropriate authority as also the Single Judge of High Court had clearly come 
to the conclusion that the first respondent was neither declared a proclaimed 
offender nor an award for his arrest was announced or an order of detention 
had been issued but could not be served. The Division Bench of the High Court, 
therefore, committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment in 
B 
so far as it proceeded on the basis that respondent no. 1 was entitled to grant C 
of pension under the Samman Pension Scheme, only because an order of 
detention had been issued against him. H only an order of detention was issued~ 
the same by itself may ~ot lead to conclusion that the first respom.lent had to 
remain underground for more than six months, unless he proved one or the 
other requisite condition precedents therefore mentioned in the scheme. 
D 
[Paras 11, 12 and 13) (690-F, E, DJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1915 of2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.02.2005 of the High Court of 
Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 73 of 2005. E 
R. Mohan, ASG., Sandhya Goswami and Sushma Suri for the Appellant. 
Vidya Bhaskar Mishra, N.N, Jha, Nitin K. Thakur and Rameshwar Prasad 
Goyal for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
F 
2. The Union of India is before us questioning a judgment and order 
dated 18.2.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra G 
Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 73 of 2005 whereby and whereunder an inter-
Court appeal preferred by Respondent No. 1 herein from a judgment and order 
dated 23.9.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court was set 
aside. 
3. Indisputably, a scheme known as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension H 
Scheme. 1980 was floated by the Central Government. Conditions for grant of 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 4 S.C.R. 
A said samman were specified therein, the relevant provisions whereof being 
cl

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