UNION OF INDIA versus SHRI AVTAR SINGH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 666 · Decided: 18-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
SHRI A VT AR SINGH 
JULY 18,2006 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,JJ.] 
Swatantrata Sainik Sam man Pension Scheme, I 980-Freedom fighters 
pension-Entitlement for payment-Relevant proof of-Affidavits indicating 
C different period of imprisonment-Non-filing of jail certificates supporting 
jail suffering based on jail records-Jn its absence, non-availability of records 
certificate also not filed-Thus, claimant not entitled to pension-However, 
pension already paid would not be recovered. 
Respondent claimed pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman 
D Pension Scheme, 1980 since he had participated in the freedom struggle of 
the country and had suffered imprisonment. Pension was granted to the 
respondent, but later, on enquiry it was found that the respondent had indicated 
different versions of period of imprisonment while claiming pension under 
the Scheme and the same was accepted hy him. Thereafter, the pension 
sanctioned to him was cancelled and he was directed to refund the amount 
E already paid to him. Aggrieved, respondent approached the court. High Court 
holding the difference in the dates of period of imprisonment as 
inconsequential, issued direction for grant of pension to the respondent under 
the Scheme. Thereafter, Letters Patent Appeal was filed which was dismissed. 
Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Appellant-Union of India contended that the application filed by the 
respondent was incomplete; that jail certificate in support of jail suffering 
based on official records of the jail was not filed and on the contrary certificate 
from a person whose credentials were doubtful was filed; and that in case jail 
certificate was not available, a Non-Availability of Records Certificate from 
G the concerned authorities was to be filed and only if such certificate is filed, 
the Co-prisoners Certificate from two co-prisoners could be considered. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In terms of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension 
666 
U.0.1. v.AVTARSINGH[PASAYAT,J.] 
667 
Scheme, 1980 the applicant has to furnish a certificate from the jail authority, A 
District Magistrate or the State authorities indicating the period of sentence 
awarded, date of admission, date of release and reasons for release and in the 
absence of such a certificate a non-availability of records certificate (NARC) 
along with a co-prisoners' certificate (CPC), namely, two certificates from 
freedom fighters who had a proven jail suffering for one year or one certificate B 
from a sitting MP or MLA or an ex-MP or ex-MLA. (670-C-D; F-H) 
1.2. High Court was not justified in granting relief to the respondent-
writ petitioner. One of the basic requirements was a certificate to the effect 
that the jail records were not available unless jail certificate was filed, was 
not met with. Thus, the application was defective. However, the pension which C 
has already been paid to the respondent should not be recovered. [671-F-Gl 
Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and Ors., (2001] 8 SCC 8; WB. Freedom 
Fighters' Organisation v. Union of India and Ors., [2004] 7 SCC 716; 
Mukundlal Bhandari v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1993) SC 2127 and 
Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., [2005) 7 SCC D 
605, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3019 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.2005 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in LP.A. No. 145/2005. 
E 
B.B. Singh, Anuvrat Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Singh and Sushma Suri for 
the Appellant. 
Anil Mittal and Dr. Kailash Chand for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
The Union of India calls in question legality of the judgment rendered 
F 
by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the G 
Letters Patent Appeal filed by it. Learned Single Judge whose order was 
assailed before the Division Bench had held that the respondent was entitled 
to freedom fighters pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension 
Scheme, 1980 (in short 'scheme'). 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-
H 
668 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The respondent claimed that he had participated in the freedom struggle 
of the country and had suffered imprisonment and was, therefore, entitled to 
pension under the scheme. Earlier there was a Freedom Fighter's Pension 
Scheme, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the '

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