Holding

The respondent failed to establish any of the statutory conditions; an order of detention alone is insufficient, and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

The Union of India appealed against a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that had set aside the rejection of a pension claim under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The scheme provides pension to freedom fighters who remained underground for more than six months and who satisfy one of three conditions: being a proclaimed offender, having an award for arrest announced, or having an order of arrest issued but not served. The respondent, K. Indrasena Reddy, produced a detention order but failed to prove any of the stipulated conditions or the six‑month underground period. Both the appropriate authority and the Single Judge of the High Court held that the claimant did not meet the eligibility criteria. The Supreme Court affirmed that an order of detention alone does not satisfy the scheme’s requirements and that the Division Bench erred in its judgment. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the High Court’s decision was set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the claimant satisfied the eligibility criteria under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, particularly the requirement of being a proclaimed offender, having an award for arrest, or an unserved arrest order together with a six‑month underground period.
Whether an order of detention by itself is sufficient to establish that the claimant remained underground for the requisite period.
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in overturning the earlier decision rejecting the pension claim.

Subjects

Freedom fighter pensionEligibility criteriaUnderground statusProclaimed offenderOrder of detentionSwatantrata Sainik Samman Pension SchemeAppellate jurisdictionManifest error

Judgment

+
\

...
A UNION OF INDIA
v. .
K. .JNDRASENA REDDY AND ANR.

APRIL 02, 2007

B [S. B. SINHAANDMARKANDEYKATJU,JJ.]

Freedom Fighters-Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme,
1980-Clause 2.3-Pension under-Claim for-By Freedom Fighter-
Entitlement to-Held: Claimant not entitled to pension under the scheme
C since he failed to establish that he fulfilled the eligibility criteria/conditions
under the scheme.

Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 was floated by
appellant-Government. A person was entitled to the benefit of the Scheme
D provided he fulfilled the criteria laid down therein. One of the criteria was
that the person on account of participatioe in the freedom struggle had to
remain underground for more than six months. The criteria was subject to
the conditions that the person was proclaimed offender or he was one on whom
an award of arrest was announced or for whose detention an order of arrest
was issued but not served. The respondent applied for pension under the
E Scheme claiming to be failing under above-mentioned criteria. The same was
rejected. The claim was again reconsidered at the direction oflligh Court.
The claim was dismissed by appropriate Authority holding that he has not
established that he fulfilled eligibility criteria. On a Writ Petition, Single
Judge of High Court upheld the finding of appropriate Authority. In Writ
Appeal Division Bench of High Court held that the respondent was eligible
F
for pension under the Scheme as the record revealed that an order of detention
had been issued against 98 persons and the respondent was one of them. Hence
the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
G HELD : 1. A Person is entitled to the benefit of the Samman Pension
Scheme provided he fulfills the criteria laid down therein. One of the criteria
laid down in the said scheme was that the concerned person on account of his
participation in freedom struggle, had remained as underground for more
than six months. However, the same would be subject to the conditions laid
H 686
U.0.1. v. K. INDRASENA REDDY (S. B. SINHA, J.] 687
- down therein, namely, (i) he has to be a proclaimed offender; or (ii) he is one
on whom an award for arrest was announced; or (iii) he is one for whose
A

detention, an order of arrest was issued but not served. [Para 10] [690-B-C)

2. Respondent no. 1 has not been able to establish that he fulfillerl the
eligibility criteria/conditions laid down under the said scheme. The
appropriate authority as also the Single Judge of High Court had clearly come B
to the conclusion that the first respondent was neither declared a proclaimed
offender nor an award for his arrest was announced or an order of detention
had been issued but could not be served. The Division Bench of the High Court,
therefore, committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment in
so far as it proceeded on the basis that respondent no. 1 was entitled to grant C
of pension under the Samman Pension Scheme, only because an order of
detention had been issued against him. H only an order of detention was issued~
the same by itself may ~ot lead to conclusion that the first respom.lent had to
remain underground for more than six months, unless he proved one or the
other requisite condition precedents therefore mentioned in the scheme. D
[Paras 11, 12 and 13) (690-F, E, DJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1915 of2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.02.2005 of the High Court of
Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 73 of 2005. E
R. Mohan, ASG., Sandhya Goswami and Sushma Suri for the Appellant.

Vidya Bhaskar Mishra, N.N, Jha, Nitin K. Thakur and Rameshwar Prasad
Goyal for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The Union of India is before us questioning a judgment and order
dated 18.2.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra G
Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 73 of 2005 whereby and whereunder an inter-
Court appeal preferred by Respondent No. 1 herein from a judgment and order
dated 23.9.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court was set
aside.

3. Indisputably, a scheme known as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension H
Scheme. 1980 was floated by the Central Government. Conditions for grant of
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 4 S.C.R.

A said samman were specified therein, the relevant provisions whereof being
clause 2, 3, are as under:

"2.3 Underground:- A person who on account of his participation in
freedom struggle remained underground for more than six months
provided he was;
B
A. a proclaimed offender; or
B. one on whom an award for arrest was announced; or

C. one for whose detention; order was issued but not served."

C 4. The applications of respondent No. 1 filed in this behalf in tenns of
the said scheme having been rejected by the appropriate Government, a writ
petition was filed before High Court. By an order dated 13.11.1998 passed in
writ Petition No. 33261/1998 it directed the appellants herein to take appropriate
decision on the application of the said first respondent and consider his case
D for grant of pension under the said scheme.

5. Pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof the application of the first
. respondent was considered and rejected by the appellants in tenns of an
order dated 21.10 .1999 stating:

E "You have claimed underground suffering in connection with the
freedom struggle for merger of erstwhile Hyderabad State into Indian
Union and have produced a copy of detention order issued by the
Director Gen. of Police ofNizam Govt. Vi de letter No. 2/Cong./56 fasli
dated 5.12.1356 fasli together a list of 98 accused persons in support
thereof. The said documents have been scrutinized and found that
F they are lacking to fulfill certain conditions which are as follows:

(i) the documents submitted by you shows that all the 98 persons
enlisted were to be detained by the police as per the powers
conferred to police Department; and it was not executed according
to yotir claim;
G
(ii) warrant of arrest in your case does not appear to have been
issued by the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate. as the~e is no
warrant of arrest in detention cases;
(iii) the documents does not prove the required minimum period of
H six months: sufferings as in all the enactments of detention. the
periodicity of detention once is to be given in definite tenns,
I

t
.1

U.0.1. v. K. INDRASENA REDDY [S. B. SINHA, J.] 689
which is Lacking here; and A
(iv) the present knowledge certificate furnished by you is not from
eligible certifier."

6. A writ petition thereagainst was filed by the first respondent before
the High Court which, as noticed hereinbefore, was dismissed by a learned B
Single Judge of that Court opining:

-
"If a person claims that he remained underground pursuant to detention
order, such person has to produce documentary evidence. Like copy
of court order proclaiming of such person as an offender. and
announcing an award on his head. A certificate from veteran freedom <;

-
fighters, who had themselves undergone imprisonment for five years
or more, if the final records are not forthcoming due to their non-
availability is also sufficient evidence. It is not the case of the petitioner
that he has produced evidence by way of Court order proclaiming him
as an absconder or announcing an award on his head. It appears he
has produced a certificate from another freedom fighter and the same D
was rejected by the first respondent observing that such freedom
fighter, who has given personal knowledge certificate is not eligible
certifier. The First respondent has considered all aspects of the matter
in the light of various guidelines contained in the Scheme and I do
not find any arbitrariness or illegallity in rejecting the claim of the E
petitioner for sanction of the pension under Swatantrata Sainik Pension
Scheme."

7. A Division Bench of the High Court, however, in an intra-Court
appeal passed the impugned judgment. It proceeded on the basis that for
remaining underground, a certificate from veteran freedom fighter, which is in p ',
; the nature of a secondary evidence, was not necessary as the records produced
before the Authority reveal that an order of detention had been issued
against 98 persons under Rules 119 of the Defence of Hyderabad Rules and
the first respondent was one of them.

8. Mr. R. Mohan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on G
behalf of the appellant submits that the Division Bench of the High Court in
the facts and circumstances of the case should not have interfered with the
order impugned in the writ petition as also the order passed by the learned
Single Judge.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalfofthe respondent, on the other H
I
-t
\

690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.
~
A hand, would contend that keeping in view the intent and purport of the
scheme framed by the appellant itself, there cannot be any doubt, whatsoever,
that in the event primary evidence, namely, the Court records are not available:
a certificate granted by a veteran freedom fighter would serve the purpose.

l 0. A person is entitled to the henefit of the Samman Pension Scheme
B provided he fulfills the criteria laid down therein. One of the criteria laid in
. the said scheme, as noticed hereinbefore, was that the concerned person on
account of his participation in freedom struggle. Had to remain underground
for more than six months. However, the same would be subject to the
conditions laid down therein, namely, (i) he has to be a proclaimed offender: --
c or (ii) he is one on whom an award for arrest was announced; or (iii) he is
one for whose detention, an order of arrest was issued but not served.

11. If only an order of detention was issued, the same by itself may lead
to a conclusion that the first respondent had to remain underground for more
than six months, unless he proves one or the other requisite condition
D precedents therefor mentioned in the scheme.

12. The appropriate authority as also the learned Single Judge had ~

clearly come to the conclusion that the first respondent was neither declared
a proclaimed offender nor an award for his arrest was announced or an order
of detention had been issued but could not be served. The Division Bench .-
.

E of the High Court, therefore, in our opinion committed a manifest error in
passing the impugned judgment in so far as it proceeded on the basis that
respondent No.1 herein was entitled to grant of pension under the Samman
Pension Scheme. only because an order of detention had been· issued against
him.
F 13. We are, therefore, satisfied that respondent No. 1 has not been able
....
to establish that he fulfilled the eligibility criteria/conditions laid down under
the said scheme.

14. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be
G sustained which is set aside accordingly, The appeal is allowed. No costs.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.