Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nakul Sagun Narulkar, was recognized as a freedom fighter by the State of Goa under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (State Scheme) formulated by the State Government. He applied for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (Central Scheme) formulated by the Central Government. The Central Government denied his claim based on an administrative instruction dated 06.10.2009, which required that the applicant must have been recognized as a freedom fighter by the Central Government prior to the application. The petitioner challenged this instruction and the denial of pension by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court at Goa. The court heard arguments from the petitioner's counsel, Mr. Shivan Desai, the Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1 (Union of India), Mr. Raviraj Chodankar, and the Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.2 (State of Goa), Mr. D. Shirodkar. The court examined the provisions of the Central Scheme and found that it does not contain any requirement for prior recognition by the Central Government. The administrative instruction imposing such a condition was held to be ultra vires the Scheme. The court quashed the instruction and directed Respondent No.1 to reconsider the petitioner's claim on its merits, without reference to the quashed instruction. The petition was allowed in terms of prayer clauses (A), (B), and (C).
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Ultra Vires - Administrative Instruction - Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 - The court held that an administrative instruction dated 06.10.2009 requiring prior recognition by the Central Government for pension eligibility under the Central Scheme is ultra vires the Scheme itself, as the Scheme does not mandate such prior recognition. The instruction cannot override the provisions of the Scheme. (Paras 2-10) B) Freedom Fighter Pension - Eligibility - State Recognition - Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 - The petitioner, already recognized as a freedom fighter by the State of Goa under its State Scheme, sought pension under the Central Scheme. The court held that the Central Government must consider the petitioner's claim on merits without insisting on prior Central recognition, as the administrative instruction imposing such condition is invalid. (Paras 2-10) C) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorari - Quashing of Administrative Instruction - The court quashed the administrative instruction dated 06.10.2009 and directed Respondent No.1 to reconsider the petitioner's claim for freedom fighter's pension under the 1980 Scheme in accordance with law, without reference to the quashed instruction. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Government can deny pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 to a freedom fighter already recognized by the State Government, based on an administrative instruction requiring prior recognition by the Central Government.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the administrative instruction dated 06.10.2009 and the impugned communications, and directed Respondent No.1 to reconsider the petitioner's claim for freedom fighter's pension under the 1980 Scheme in accordance with law, without reference to the quashed instruction.
Law Points
- Administrative instruction cannot override statutory scheme
- Freedom fighter pension eligibility under Central Scheme
- Distinction between State and Central schemes
- Ultra vires administrative instructions
