Bombay High Court Allows Widow's Petition for Freedom Fighter Pension Despite Early Release Due to Government Order. Remission of Sentence Does Not Disentitle Pension Under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 85
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Smt. Anusayabai Khanderao Sure, is the widow of a freedom fighter, Khanderao Sure, who participated in the Bharatnagar Satyagraha in 1939 in the old Hyderabad State. He was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 11 months under Sections 122 and 164 of the Taziral by Nazim Sahib Adalth, Patihan on 7th May 1939. He was detained in Aurangabad Central Prison from 8th May 1939 and released on 10th August 1939 based on an order of the Government, before completing six months of imprisonment. The petitioner and her husband had applied for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. On 15th June 2001, an order was passed denying the pension on the ground that the condition of suffering actual imprisonment of six months was not complied with. The petitioner challenged this order. The court considered the submissions of the petitioner's counsel, who argued that the early release was due to a government order and not due to any application by the husband. The counsel relied on Supreme Court decisions in Mukund Lal Bhandari, Surja, Duli Chand, and Manohar Lal Azad, which held that remission of sentence due to general amnesty does not disentitle freedom fighters to pension. The court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 15th June 2001, and directed the respondent to grant pension to the petitioner from the date of the original application, with arrears to be paid within three months.

Headnote

A) Pension Law - Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 - Eligibility - Remission of Sentence - The petitioner's husband was sentenced to 11 months imprisonment but released before completing six months due to a government order. The court held that such remission does not disentitle the freedom fighter to pension under the scheme, following the Supreme Court's decision in Surja and others vs. Union of India. (Paras 2-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a freedom fighter who was sentenced to imprisonment for more than six months but released before completing six months due to a government order is entitled to pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Petition allowed. Order dated 15th June 2001 quashed and set aside. Respondent directed to grant pension to petitioner from the date of original application, with arrears to be paid within three months.

Law Points

  • Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme
  • 1980
  • eligibility for pension
  • remission of sentence
  • general amnesty
  • freedom fighter
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (11) 41

WRIT PETITION NO. 9273 OF 2003

2013-11-13

A.S. Oka, S.C. Gupte

Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for the Petitioner, Mr. S.B. Shetye with Mr. A.R. Varma for the Respondent

Smt. Anusayabai Khanderao Sure

Union of India

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging denial of pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 15th June 2001 and direction to grant pension.

Filing Reason

Petitioner's husband was denied pension because he did not complete six months of actual imprisonment due to early release by government order.

Previous Decisions

Order dated 15th June 2001 denying pension on ground of insufficient imprisonment.

Issues

Whether early release due to government order disentitles a freedom fighter to pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that husband was sentenced to 11 months but released early due to government order, not his own application; relied on Supreme Court decisions holding remission does not disentitle. Respondent argued that condition of six months actual imprisonment was not fulfilled.

Ratio Decidendi

Remission of sentence due to a government order or general amnesty does not disentitle a freedom fighter to pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, as long as the original sentence was for more than six months.

Judgment Excerpts

He urged that Apex Court has taken a view that the technicality should not come in the way of grant of pension to freedom fighters under the said scheme if the claim is found to be genuine. He pointed out that all of them were convicted for a term exceeding six months and only as a result of general amnesty declared by the Nizam of Hyderabad, that their substantive sentences were reduced and the petitioners were set free even before completing sentence of six months.

Procedural History

Petitioner's husband initially applied for pension; after his death, petitioner continued. On 15th June 2001, pension was denied. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9273 of 2003 in Bombay High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980:
  • Taziral: 122, 164
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Widow's Petition for Freedom Fighter Pension Despite Early Release Due to Government Order. Remission of Sentence Does Not Disentitle Pension Under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.
Related Judgement
High Court Karnataka High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Mandamus to Increase Intake in Physiotherapy College — No Statutory Right to Enhanced Intake. Court holds that the petitioner has no vested right to increase student intake and the remedy lies in...