Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned denial of freedom fighters' pension under the Swatantrya Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, introduced by the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995. The original petitioner, Bapurao Deshpande, claimed to be an underground freedom fighter in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement and applied for pension in March 2004. After prolonged inaction, he filed Writ Petition No.3601 of 2016, which was disposed of on 16.04.2016 with directions to the authorities to decide his application expeditiously. The petitioner then removed deficiencies, and the District Honour Committee recommended his claim. However, the State Government rejected the claim on 31.08.2016. The petitioner challenged this rejection in Writ Petition No.6972 of 2017. By judgment dated 18.02.2020, the High Court set aside the rejection and directed reconsideration, observing that the matter should not be approached perfunctorily or hyper technically. On reconsideration, the State Government by communication dated 29.06.2020 again rejected the claim. The original petitioner having died, his widow Kamalabai pursued the present Writ Petition No.6675 of 2020 challenging the second rejection.
The grounds of rejection included non-submission of documents required under clauses 1, 3 and 4 of the Government Resolution, the recommendation being based only on certificates of freedom fighters, lack of contemporary documents proving participation, vague information in certificates, and no new proof after remand. The petitioner argued that clauses 3 and 4 were optional, that he had submitted sufficient evidence including affidavits, police patil certificate, and villagers' certificate, and that the District Honour Committee had recommended his claim. The State defended the rejection, contending that no new document was supplied and that contemporary record was necessary.
The High Court noted that the scheme's clauses 3 and 4, which required certified copy of government record and original newspaper, were qualified by 'if available', making them optional. The court referred to its earlier decision in Writ Petition No.6972 of 2017, which had emphasized a liberal approach and criticized hyper sensitive and suspective evaluation. It observed that the rejection on ground of non-compliance with optional clauses was unsustainable. The court also noted that the District Honour Committee recommendation and certificates from freedom fighters and villagers were relevant and could not be disregarded solely for absence of contemporary records. The extracted portion of the judgment ends while analyzing the unsustainability of the rejection, indicating that the court was inclined to set aside the impugned order; the final operative directions are not included in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Freedom Fighters' Pension - Underground Freedom Fighter - Documentary Requirements - Swatantrya Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1995, Clause 3 and Clause 4 - The scheme's clauses requiring certified copy of government record and original newspaper were qualified by 'if available', making them optional - Court held that rejection of pension claim on ground of non-submission of these optional documents was unsustainable, especially when applicant submitted affidavits, certificates of freedom fighters, police patil, and District Honour Committee recommendation (Paras 6-9).
B) Judicial Review - Remand and Reconsideration - Compliance with Earlier Directions - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Earlier High Court order directed State to reconsider claim without hyper technical or pedantic approach; State's second rejection reiterated same grounds without new material - Held that State's approach was perfunctory and contrary to directions; hyper technical pedantic approach must be eschewed (Paras 3, 7-9).
C) Pension Claim - Evidence - Contemporary Records Not Sole Proof - Swatantrya Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1995 - District Honour Committee recommendation and certificates from freedom fighters and villagers are relevant evidence; demand for contemporary records as sole proof is unjustified - Held that participation in freedom movement can be established through other evidence, and rejection solely for lack of contemporary record was arbitrary (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government's rejection of the petitioner's claim for Swatantrya Sainik Sanman Pension under the underground freedom fighter category, after remand by the High Court, was arbitrary, contrary to the earlier decision, and based on an incorrect interpretation of the scheme's documentary requirements.
Law Points
- Freedom fighters' pension scheme must be interpreted liberally
- hyper technical and pedantic approach should be eschewed
- optional clauses 3 and 4 cannot be made mandatory
- District Honour Committee recommendation deserves due weight
- contemporary records are not the sole proof of participation in freedom movement
- State must comply with earlier judicial directions and not approach reconsideration perfunctorily.
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (07) 14
Writ Petition No.6675 of 2020
R. G. Avachat, Neeraj P. Dhote
Shri V. S. Panpatte for Petitioner; Shri P. S. Patil, Addl. G.P. for Respondents
Kamalabai w/o. Bapurao Deshpande (Legal Heir of Bapurao Deshpande)
State of Maharashtra and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the State Government's rejection of freedom fighters' pension under the Swatantrya Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (widow of the original applicant) sought quashing of the impugned communication dated 29.06.2020 rejecting the pension claim and a direction to grant the pension.
Filing Reason
The State Government maintained its rejection of the pension claim even after the High Court had set aside the earlier rejection and directed reconsideration with a liberal approach.
Previous Decisions
Writ Petition No.3601 of 2016 disposed of on 16.04.2016 directing expeditious decision; Writ Petition No.6972 of 2017 decided on 18.02.2020 setting aside rejection and directing reconsideration within eight weeks; impugned communication dated 29.06.2020 again rejected the claim.
Issues
Whether the State Government's second rejection of the petitioner's pension claim was arbitrary and contrary to the earlier High Court direction to avoid hyper technical approach.
Whether clauses 3 and 4 of the Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995, which required certified copy of government record and original newspaper, were mandatory or optional, and whether non-compliance could justify rejection.
Whether the requirement of contemporary records as sole proof of participation in the freedom movement was justified when other evidence and District Honour Committee recommendation supported the claim.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that clauses 3 and 4 of the scheme were optional, and he had submitted sufficient evidence including affidavits, certificates of police patil and senior citizens, and the District Honour Committee had recommended his claim.
Petitioner contended that the State Government rejected the claim without considering the observations of the High Court in the earlier round of litigation and that the decision was a result of non-application of mind.
State argued that the petitioner failed to place on record documents showing his participation in the freedom fighters' movement and did not supply any new document or proof after remand, so the earlier rejection was maintained.
State submitted that no case was made out to interfere with the impugned decision and relied on the judgment in State of Maharashtra & Ors vs. Namdeo etc etc., (2013) 14 SCC 225.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Swatantrya Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme must be interpreted liberally, keeping in view its laudable object. Hyper technical and pedantic approaches should be eschewed while considering claims of freedom fighters, especially aged ones. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995, which required certified copy of government record and original newspaper, were optional as they were qualified by the phrase 'if available'. Rejection of a pension claim solely on the ground of non-submission of these optional documents was unsustainable. The recommendation of the District Honour Committee and certificates from freedom fighters and villagers were relevant evidence and could not be disregarded merely because they were not supported by contemporary records. The State Government was bound to comply with the earlier High Court direction to reconsider the claim without approaching it perfunctorily.
Judgment Excerpts
The rejection of the claim towards the said Pension on the ground that no document / proof in support of Clause Nos. 3 and 4 of the above referred Government Resolution, is unsustainable for the reason that, the said Clause Nos. 3 and 4 from the said G.
It would also be pertinent that matter would not be approached perfunctorily and hyper technically.
The participation of a person in the Freedom Movement is necessarily to be established by the contemporary documents / record.
Procedural History
Original petitioner applied for Swatantrya Sainik Sanman Pension in March 2004. Due to inaction, he filed Writ Petition No.3601 of 2016, which was disposed of on 16.04.2016 with directions to decide the application. The petitioner removed deficiencies on 17.05.2016 and the District Honour Committee recommended his claim. The State Government rejected the claim on 31.08.2016. The petitioner challenged the rejection in Writ Petition No.6972 of 2017, which was decided on 18.02.2020, setting aside the rejection and directing reconsideration within eight weeks. The State Government reconsidered and by communication dated 29.06.2020 again rejected the claim. The original petitioner having died, his widow pursued the present Writ Petition No.6675 of 2020.
Acts & Sections
- Swatantrya Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1995: Clause 1, Clause 3, Clause 4, Clause 5
