UNION OF INDIA versus KRISHNA MODI & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 638 · Decided: 03-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VINEET SARAN, ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 638
638
UNION OF INDIA
v.
KRISHNA MODI & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 909 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 03, 2022
[VINEET SARAN AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Freedom Fighters – Pension – Scheme – Eligibility –
Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 – Claim for
pension under – Validity – Held: Claim of respondent no. 1 was, for
the first time, made on 27.12.1982, whereas the Freedom Fighters
Pension Scheme existed in year 1972, which was only amended in
the year 1980 – Hence, it cannot be said that the respondent filed
his claim promptly – Under the said scheme, a person eligible for
the benefit should have remained underground for more than six
months – It is not understood as to how respondent no. 1 could be
categorised as a person who remained underground for a period
of six months or more, merely on the basis of certificates issued by
certain freedom fighters, who were themselves in jail during the
period when they certified that respondent no.1 had remained
underground – Even assuming that the certificate issued by the
school authorities is authentic, simply because respondent no.1 did
not attend the school during a particular period, when he was merely
about 12 years of age, would not amount to respondent no.1 having
remained underground because of his participation in the freedom
struggle – Further, there was no recommendation of the State
Government but the application of respondent no.1 was merely
forwarded by the State Government – Mere fact that the State
Government granted pension under some freedom fighters pension
scheme of the State Government would not, by itself, entitle
respondent no.1 to claim under the scheme of the Central
Government, unless respondent no.1 fulfilled the conditions of the
Central Government Scheme, which in the present case is SSS
Pension Scheme, 1980 – On facts, the High Court overlooked the
various requirements under the SSS Pension Scheme, 1980, which
were to be fulfilled by respondent no.1 for grant of benefits of the
Scheme, and allowed grant of pension to respondent no.1 merely
on basis of sympathy, and because the State Government had granted
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
639
benefit under a separate scheme of the State Government, and on
certain presumption of respondent no.1 having remained
underground for a certain period without there being proper
authentication as required under the Scheme in question – Judgment
of High Court set aside.
Union of India v. Avtar Singh, (2006) 6 SCC 493 : [2006]
3 Suppl. SCR 666 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 666
referred to
Para 14
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 909 of
2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2020 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur Bench in W.A. No.1971 of 2019.
Jayant K. Sud, ASG, Merusagar Samantray, Ms. Preeti Rani, Om
Prakash Shukla, Raghav Sharma, Ms. Garima Prasad, A. K. Sharma,
B. V. Balaram Das, Advs. for the Appellant.
Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Ganesh Barowalia, Girish Patel, Advs. for
the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The present matter relates to grant of pension under the
Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for short ‘SSS
Pension Scheme’) introduced by the Central Government on 15.08.1981.
3. The brief facts of this case are that in response to the SSS
Pension Scheme,1980, the respondent no. 1 submitted an application
before the Central Government on 27.12.1982 claiming freedom fighter’s
pension on the ground that he suffered eight months confinement in the
freedom movement in the year 1942, in the form of being underground
for such period. It is the case of the respondent no. 1 that from the
period of 21.11.1942 to 20.08.1943 (during which he did not attend the
school), he remained underground and hence, would be entitled for pension
under the said SSS Pension Scheme. Since the application of the
respondent no. 1 was not considered, he filed a writ petition before the
UNION OF INDIA v. KRISHNA MODI & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
640
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
Madhya Pradesh High Court, which was disposed of by giving a direction
to the appellant/Union of India herein to decide the claim of the respondent
no. 1. The matter travelled to the High Court on several occasions and
ultimately, on 03.02.2009, the application of the respondent was rejected
by the appellant.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no. 1 filed a writ
petition before
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.