KAMALBAI SINKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

                    [2012] 6 S.C.R. 1011

                     KAMALBAI SINKAR                            A
                             v.
            STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 5344 of 2012)
                        JULY 20, 2012
                                                                B
    [T.S. THAKUR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM
                  KALIFULLA, JJ.]

      Freedom Fighters' Pension - Application seeking
 freedom fighters' pension - In the category of 'Underground C
 Freedom Fighter' - Documents furnished as per the
 requirement under Government Resolution - Application
 rejected by State Government - High Court confirming the
 order of State - On appeal, held: The applicant made out a
 case for grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension under the D
 category 'Underground Freedom Fighter' - Since the applicant
 is no more, direction to grant the pension to his wife-appellant.
      Husband of the appellant forwarded his application
  claiming freedom fighters pension under the category          E
  'Underground Freedom Fighter'. He enclosed certain
  documents in support of his claim as required by the
  Government Resolution dated 4. 7 .1995. The State
  Government communicated the Colle~tor that there was
  no concrete evidence to prove the participation in the
  freedom fight movement by the applicant and hence his         F
  application was rejected. Writ Petition was filed
  challenging the order of the State. High Court dismissed
· the petition confirming the order of the State. Hence the
  present appeal.
                                                                G
     Allowing the appeal, the Court
    HELD: 1. The appellant's husband made a genuine
effort to collect all those credentials in his support as
                            1011                                H
    1012    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A   required under the Resolution of the State Government
    dated 04.07.1995, and forwarded them to the State
    Government along with his application. When the
    Collector forwarded his letter and reiterated his
    recommendation in his subsequent communications,
B   there was no reason for the State Government to simply
    reject the application without assigning any reason. A
    perusal of the documents enclosed by the appellant's
    husband along with his application disclose that the
    appellant's husband made out a case for grant of
c   Freedom Fighters' Pension under the category
    "Underground Freedom Fighter". There was nothing
    more for the State to examine to honour the claim of the
    appellant's husband for grant of Freedom Fighters'
    Pension. The claim of the appellant's husband cannot be
    held to be a fraudulent one or without any supporting
0
    material. The High Court ought to have examined the
    grievance of the appellant before confirming the order of
    rejection of the respondent State. [Paras 8 and 9] [1017-
    A-E]

E        Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and Ors. 2001 (8) SCC
    8: 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 323 - relied on.

         2. The respondent State is directed to grant Freedom
    Fighters' Pension in favour of the appellant's husband
F   and since he is no more, grant the same with all arrears
    to the appellant. [Para 9] [1017-F]
                         Case Law Reference:
        2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 323 Relied on                Para 8
G       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    5344 of 2012.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 6.3.2009 of the High
    Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition
H   No. 506 of 2009.
 KAMALBAI SINKAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1013


      Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha S. Desai, Somanatha Padhan         A
for the Appellant.

    Mike P. Desai, Sanjay Kharde, Asha Gopalan Nair for the
Respondents.
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                     B

    FAKKiR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. Leave
granted.
     2. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the High
Court in the Writ Petition in which the claim of the appellant's   C
husband for grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension came to be
rejected. Today the original applicant is not available and his
wife is pursuing this litigation. By a Government Resolution
dated 04.07.1995, after making references to various other
earlier resolutions of the Government of Maharashtra relating      D
to grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension, the criteria for grant of
Freedom Fighters' Pension was specified under two different
categories, namely, one under "Prisoners Freedom Fighter"
and the- other under the category of "Underground Freedom
Fighter". The claim of the appellant's husband was under the       E
second category, namely, "Underground Freedom Fighter".

    3. For grant of pension under the said category following
requisites were stipulated:

    "E) Underground Freedom Fighter:-                              F
          Those freedom fighters who were under ground and
    doing a work in a movement of Quit India 1942-44 and
    Hydrabad Mukti Sangram 1947-48. They submit the
    following necessary certificates:
                                                                   G
    (1) Required to quit house and stay outside.

   _ (2) Required to leave education or removed from
     Educational Institutions.

    (3) Was so beaten by the police that caused disability.        H
    1014     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A        (2) The Certificates of two Freedom Fighters who were
         convicted for minimum two years or who were declared
         absconding or who remained absconded for at least two
         years and along with such certificates, the Proclamation
         of conviction or absconding or supporting affidavit of
B        person issuing such certificate alongwith the orders of
         Government.
         (4) The certified copy, if any, Government document of that
         time is available regarding the underground.
c        (5) If any information about the name published in
         newspapers, the original newspaper.
         (6) At the time of remark, District Gaurao Committee shall
         submit their opinion."
D       4. The said Resolution was issued with the consent of the
  Finance Department bearing reference No. C.R-1183/94NY-
  4 dated 10.11.1994. Pursuant to the said resolution dated
  04.07 .1995, the husband of the appellant forwarded his
  application dated 05. 08.1995 through the Collector of Amravati.
E Along with the said application, he also enclosed certain
  Annexures (viz) a certificate of renowned freedom fighter dated
  24.04.1984 by name Shankar Pandurangji Choudhari, a
  certificate issued by Mr. Maganlal Bagdi, Ex-MP, Hoshangabad
  along with his own certificate, a certificate of Patwari Kasba,
F Warud Division, Taluk Warud dated 29.09.1981, a certificate
  dated 08.06.1981 of freedom fighter S.P.Choudhary of Warud
  Taluk, Amravati District, a certificate issued by the office of Naib
  Tehsildar, M.K. Puranik dated 05.08.1961 in favour of Shankar
  Pandurang Choudhary about the imprisonments suffered by him
  and a medical certificate dated 15.08.1981 issued by Dr. S.G.
G Choudhari in favour of the applicant about his participation in
  Satyagraha Morcha on 13.08.1942, the injuries suffered by him
  in the Lathi Charge and the treatment given to him between
  13.08.1942 to 15.08.1942.

H
 KAMALBAI SINKAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1015
   [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

     5. Based on an earlier order passed by the Nagpur Bench       A
of the High Court in Writ Petition No.424 of 2007, the Collector
of Amravati in his letter dated 29.10.2009 informed the
appellant that her husband's claim for grant of Freedom
Fighters' Pension was submitted to the Government along with
recommendation of the Gaurav Samiti dated 20.12.1996. The          B
appellant was advised to contact the Government. However, in
the order of the State Government dated 22.01.2008
communicated to the Collector of Amravati, it was stated that
there was no concrete evidence in proof of the participation of
the freedom fight movement by the husband of the appellant         c
and his claim for grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension was,
therefore, rejected. The Collector was directed to communicate
the same to the appellant.
     6. Having perused the above materials on record, at the
very outset, we wish to refer to the observations made by this     D
Court in regard to the grant of Freedom Fighter's Pension in
the decision reported in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
[2001 (8) SCC 8]. In paragraph 7 of the judgment, this Court
has highlighted the manner in which such claims are to be
considered for grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension. It will be      E
worthwhile to make a reference to the said passage before
expressing our conclusion with regard to the claim of the
appellant's husband in the case on hand. Paragraph 7 reads
as under:
                                                                   F
    ''7.The standard of proof required in such cases is not such
    standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case
    adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of the
    parties. As the object of the Scheme is to honour and to
    mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for
    the country, a liberal and not a technical approach is G
    required to be followed while determining the merits of the
    case of a person seekir1g pension under the Scheme. It
    should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be
    covered by the Scheme had suffered for the country about-
                                                                   H
    1016     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A        half-a-century back and had not expected to be rewarded
         for the imprisonment suffered by them. Once the country
         has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the
         bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases
         of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the
B        purpose and object of the Scheme. The case of the
         claimants under this Scheme is required to be determined
         on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touchstone
         .Jf the test of "beyond reasonable doubt". Once on the
         basis of the evidence it is probabilised that the claimant
c        had suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country and
         during the freedom struggle, a presumption is required to
         be drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted by
         cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence."
                                                  [emphasis added]
D
        7. Keeping the above broad principles in mind, when we
  analyse the claim of the appellant's husband, we find that the
  appellant's husband had filed along with his application dated
  05.08.1995, a host of documents in support of his claim. They
E were shown as Annexures to his application and the details of
  which have been referred to by us in the earlier part of this order.
• In fact after the order of the Nagpur Bench passed in WP
  No.424 of 2007, the Government in its communication dated
  23.11.2007 addressed to the Collector of Amravati stated that
  the claim of the appellant's husband was not traceable and,
F therefore, all related documents were once again required to
  be collected and submitted to the Government including
  recommendations of Gaurav Samiti as well as the Collector's
  comments. Apparently, pursuant to the said communication, the
  Collector in his letter dated 29.10.2009 informed the appellant
G that the case submitted by her husband for getting pension ·as
  Underground Freedom Fighter was submitted to the
  Government along with office letter bearing No.KL/SS/PP/KV/
  3216 dated 20.12.1996 and the recommendations of Gaurav
  Samiti.
H
  KAMALBAI SIN KAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1017
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]

     8. In the said circumstances, we only state that the            A
appellant's husband made a genuine effort to collect all those
credentials in his support as required under the Resolution of
the State Government dated 04.07.1995, and forwarded tl:iem
to the State Government along with his application dated
05.08.1995. When the Collector, Amrawati forwarded his letter        B
dated 20.12.1996 and reiterated his recommendation in his
subsequent communications dated 14.10.2007 and
30.11.2007 there was no reason for the State Government to
simply reject the application without assigning any reason. A
perusal of the documents enclosed by the appellant's husband         c
along with his application disclose that the appellant's husband
made out a case for grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension under
the category "Underground Freedom Fighter". Applying the
broad principles laid down in the decision of this Court in
Gurdial Singh (supra), it will have to be held that there was        0
nothing more for the State to examine to honour the claim of
the appellant's husband for grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension.
The claim of the appellant's husband cannot be held to be a
fraudulent one or without any supporting material.
      9. In our considered view, the High Court ought to have        E
 examined the grievance of the appellant before confirming the
 order of rejection of the respondent State. In the circumstances,
the appeal deserves to be allowed. The impugned orders are
set aside. The respondent State is directed to grant Freedom
 Fighters' Pension in favour of the appellant's husband and since    F
he is no more, grant the same with all arrears to the appellant
by passing appropriate orders expeditiously preferably within
four weeks from the date of communication of copy of this
order. We hope and trust that the State Government will not
indulge in any further delay in the matter of grant of pension so    G
as to enable the appellant to avail the benefits at least during
her life time. The appeal stands allowed with the above
directions to the respondent State. No costs.

K.K.T.                                          Appeal allowed.
                                                                     H