Supreme Court of India
SURJA AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1991 INSC 234
- Decided
- 13 September 1991
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- RANGANATH MISRA
Holding
Petitioners are eligible for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme as they suffered imprisonment of more than six months for participation in the Arya Samaj movement, and remission of the sentence does not defeat that eligibility.
Summary
In a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, 55 individuals who had joined the Arya Samaj movement in the former Hyderabad State in the late 1930s claimed entitlement to the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme (renamed Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980). They had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for periods exceeding six months, although a general amnesty later reduced their sentences. The Union of India accepted that the Arya Samaj movement formed part of the freedom struggle but contested the petitioners' eligibility for pension. The Supreme Court examined whether participation in the Arya Samaj movement satisfied the scheme's requirement of a minimum six‑month imprisonment before independence and whether remission of the sentence affected that right. The Court held that each petitioner met the eligibility condition and that remission did not defeat their claim. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to admit the petitioners to pension with effect from 1 August 1980.
Issues considered
- Whether participation in the Arya Samaj movement qualifies as participation in the freedom struggle for purposes of the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme.
- Whether a sentence of more than six months, even if later remitted or reduced by amnesty, satisfies the eligibility criterion of the pension scheme.
- Whether the pension scheme applies to persons imprisoned in the Nizam's State before independence.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 32
Subjects
Freedom fighters pensionArya Samaj movementEligibility criteriaImprisonment remissionArticle 32Constitutional remedyWelfare scheme
Judgment
'
A SURJA AND OTHERS
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
~ .
SEPTEMBER 13, 1991
B [RANGANATH MISRA, CJ AND P.B. SAWANT, J.)
,,
Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972 (Swatantrata Sainik Sam-
mon. Pension Scheme, 1980)--Pension under-Eligibility indicated.,
Constitution of India, 195~Artic/e 32---=Writ Petition claiming -)<.
C freedom fighters' pension-Arya Samaj movement-Whether a part of
freedom strngg/e--Freedom fighters' pensiow-WltetherArya Samajists en-
titled.
In the Application under Article 32 of the Constitution by 55 per-
sons claiming the benefit of.the scheme of pension for Freedom Fighters,
the petitioners contended that tjiey had joined the Arya Samaj movement
D in the late 1930s within the erstwhile Nizam's State of Hyderabad and
were convicted under different provisions of the criminal law and sen-
tenced to various terms of imprisonment; that the Arya Samaj movement
had been equated with the freedom struggle and the benefit of tile pension ~
scheme was admissible to those who had participated in the movement.
:·· I - T '
·E The respondents while not disputing the assertion of the petitioners
that the Union of India has accepted the Arya Samaj movement to be a
part of the freedom struggle, has disputed the entitlement of pension in
the case of most of the petitioners.
Allowing the petition, this Court,
F HELD: 1. Freedom Fighters' "Pension Scheme of 1972 which was
renamed as "Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980" indicates: "A
person who has suffered a minimum imprisonment for six months in the
mainland jails before independence in the struggle for independence is
eligible to be admitted to the benefits of the pension." Each of the petitioners
had been c<invicted and was ordered to suffer imprisonment of more than six
G months. While they were undergoing sentence, without their praying for any
remission, a general amnesty was declared by the then Nizam on his birthday
and the sentence was reduced and the petitioners were set free. (118 E-F,D]
2. In the facts of the case it would be appropriate to hold that each
of the petitioners satisfied the condition for earning the benefit of pension
and the fact that while undergoing sentence which was for a period beyond
If 116
SURJA v. U.0.1 (RANGANA1H MISRA, CJ.] 117
six months remission bad been granted and they were let off earlier would· A
J, not take away their right to earn pension. [118F]
Duli Chand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.No. 1190/89; dated,
July 16, 1991 by the Supreme Court of India, followed.
' ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (c) No. 75 0(1991.
B
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
R.P. Singh for the Petitioners.
-
G. Ramaswamy, Attorney General, A.K. Srivastava and Ms. A.
Subhashini (N.P.) for the Respondents. C
"' • ' I • '
The Judgment, of the Court was delivered by, ·'
RANGANATH MISRA, CJ. This is an application under Article 32
of the Constitution by 55 persons'-"b.oth men and women - claiming the
benefit of the scheme of pension for Freedom Fighters. , · ..
_-t '
It is the common contention of the petitioners that they had joined
the Arya Samaj movement in the late 1930s within the erstwhile Nizam's
State of Hyderabad and each of them had been convicted under different
provisions of the criminal law then preyailing within the Nizam's State and
sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. In the case of most of them E
the term of imprisonment was around two years. They maintained that the
Arya Samaj movement has been equated with the freedom struggle and the
benefit of the pension scheme is admissible to those who had participated
-i in the movement as Arya Samajists. According to them, in the prime of
.youth the petitioners had been motivated by the call of Mahatma Gandhi,
the Father of the Nation and leaders like the late Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr. F
Rajendra Prasad and others and had given up their home and hearth and
had joined the agitation within the Nizam's State and suffered the conse-
quences. Since. their claim for pension had not been accepted by the
Government of India they have applied to this Court for appropriate direc-
tion for being admitted to the benefits of the scheme. : G
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents by
Under Secretary Alam in the Ministry of Home Affairs· who while not
disputing the assertion of the petitioners that the Union of India had ac-
cepted the Arya Samaj movement to be a part of the freedom struggle has
disputed the entitlement of pension in the case of most of the·petitioners. . H
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 1 S. C.R.
A Petitioners have relied upon the decision of this Court dated July 16,
19CJ1, in Writ Petition No. 1190/89 (Duli Chand & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors.) where similar relief claimed by 41 perso~ had been accepted. That
case, according to the counter affidavit,· was disposed of ex parte and by ac-
cepting all the allegations of the petitioners therein. In view of the dispute
now raised in the counter affidavit, particularly with reference to the factual
B aspects, we do not think it would be appropriate to dispose of the present
petition by adopting the order of this Court in the said writ petition. ·
It is the accepted position that if petitioners suffered the minimum
sentence of six months of imprisonment on account of their participation
'in the Arya Samaj movement they would be entitled to pension under the
C Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. The question for examina-
tion, therefore, is whether petitioners did suffer such sentence.
As we have already mentioned most of the petitioners have produced
material to show that they had participated as alleged and were sentenced
to imprisonment for terms exceeding six months. While they were under-
D going sentence, without their praying for any remission, a general amnesty ·
was declared by the then Nizam on his birthday and the sentence was +
reduced and the petitioners were set free.
Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme of 1972 was renamed as
"Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980". The brochure pub-
lished by the Union of India indicates: "A person who had suffered a
E minimum imprisonment for six months in the mainland jails before inde-
pendence in the struggle for independence is eligible to be admitted to
the benefits of the pension". It has already been indicated that each of the
petitioners had been convicted and was ordered to suffer imprisonment
of more than six months. The petitioners' assertion that they did not claim
remission has not been doubted or disputed. In the facts of the case it
F would be appropriate to hold that each of the petitioners satisfied the
condition for earning the benefit of pension and the fact that wh.ile un-
dergoing sentence which was for a period beyond six months remission
had been granted and they were let off earlier would .not take away their
right to earn pension. Learned Attorney General appearing for the respon-
dents has accepted this construction Of the entitlement clause.
G +
The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents ·are
directed to admit each of the petitioners to pension under ·the Scheme
within two months hence. The pension be paid with effect from 1st August
1980 as in the connected case. No costs.
V.P.R. Petition allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Freedom fighters pension"Sign in to search