Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court quashed the State Government’s rejection of the petitioner’s claim for freedom fighter pension under the ‘Underground Freedom Fighter’ category and directed the State to issue the pension certificate and sanction the pension from 24 March 2004, the date of the original application. The Court held that a hyper-technical approach must be avoided, and claims must be considered sympathetically under the principle of probability rather than strict proof.
Facts
The deceased petitioner, claiming to have participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement as an underground freedom fighter, applied in 2004 for pension under the State Government’s Swatantrya Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme. After years of inaction, the petitioner approached the Court, which directed reconsideration in 2016. The District Honour Committee recommended the claim, but the State rejected it in 2016. The petitioner again approached the Court, which in 2020 set aside the rejection and remanded the matter with clear instructions to avoid hyper-technicality while reconsidering the claim. However, the State again rejected the claim in 2020, citing lack of documentary proof and treating clauses requiring documents as mandatory rather than optional, leading to the present petition pursued by the petitioner’s widow after his death.
Issues
- Whether the State Government was justified in rejecting the freedom fighter pension claim for lack of strict documentary proof under Clause 1, 3, and 4 of the GR.
- Whether the State violated the High Court’s earlier directions by taking a hyper-technical approach during reconsideration.
- Whether the recommendation of the District Honour Committee, affidavits of freedom fighters, and supporting village certificates sufficed under the scheme.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that:
- All essential documents, including affidavits from recognised freedom fighters and certificates from the Police Patil and villagers, were submitted.
- Clauses 3 and 4 of the GR requiring government records or newspaper clippings were optional, not mandatory.
- The District Honour Committee had favourably recommended the claim, and the State’s rejection disregarded the High Court’s earlier directions to adopt a sympathetic, non-technical approach.
- The petitioner’s participation in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement was evident from affidavits detailing his underground activities, hardships faced, and police persecution.
- Precedents supported a lenient, probability-based approach in assessing such claims.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State contended that:
- The petitioner failed to submit contemporaneous documentary evidence proving participation in the freedom movement as required under Clauses 1, 3, and 4 of the GR.
- The affidavits and certificates lacked evidentiary value without contemporaneous proof.
- The recommendation of the District Honour Committee was based solely on freedom fighters’ affidavits without independent verification.
- The prior High Court direction to reconsider did not mandate granting the claim in the absence of documentary proof.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed the Swatantrya Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme GR, clarifying:
- Clauses 3 and 4 requiring contemporary records or newspaper cuttings are expressly “if available” and thus optional.
- Clause 1 requires a certificate regarding hardships faced but does not mandate independent proof beyond such certification.
- A strict standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” does not apply to pension claims, which must be assessed on probabilities and with sympathy, especially for aged claimants unable to produce records after decades.
- The recommendation of the District Honour Committee holds weight under Clause 5, and rejection solely on the ground of reliance on freedom fighters’ affidavits without contrary evidence is impermissible.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied upon:
- Gurdial Singh v. Union of India (2001) 8 SCC 8, emphasising sympathetic consideration of freedom fighter claims.
- State of Maharashtra v. Namdeo (2013) 14 SCC 225, clarifying that hyper-technicality should be avoided, and the principle of probability applies, while also acknowledging that in cases of genuine impossibility to produce records due to long passage of time, strict compliance may be relaxed.
- Other judgments including Mukund Lal Bhandari, Kishan Hanuji Jambhulkar, Chhotubhai Patel, A. Manickam Pillai, Kamalbai Sinkar, Kishansinha Chandel, Kalidas Dhale, Punjaram Indewad, Rajabai Kshirsagar, and Tulshiram Kolhe, which supported the sympathetic and purposive interpretation of freedom fighter pension schemes and upheld claims in similar circumstances.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found:
- The petitioner fulfilled Clause 1 through affidavits and certificates evidencing participation in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement and hardships faced.
- Clauses 3 and 4 were optional, and their non-fulfilment could not form grounds for rejection.
- The unanimous recommendation by the District Honour Committee could not be disregarded merely because it was based on affidavits.
- The State’s insistence on documentary proof ignored the spirit of the scheme and the High Court’s earlier directions against hyper-technical approaches.
- The cumulative evidence, including affidavits of recognised pensioner freedom fighters and village certificates, established the petitioner’s claim on a balance of probabilities.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the rejection order and directing the State to:
- Issue a certificate recognising the petitioner as an “Underground Freedom Fighter” who participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement.
- Sanction and disburse the freedom fighter pension in accordance with the GR from 24 March 2004, the date of the original application.
- Ensure compliance in alignment with the principles laid down in the relevant judgments and the objective of the pension scheme.
Implications
- Strengthens the principle of assessing freedom fighter claims on probabilities rather than strict proof.
- Clarifies that optional clauses in pension schemes cannot be enforced mandatorily.
- Reinforces the importance of respecting District Honour Committee recommendations unless credible contrary evidence is present.
- Ensures aged claimants are not denied their rights due to technicalities or missing documents from decades-old movements.
Short Notes on Referred Judgments and Their References in This Case
- Gurdial Singh (2001) 8 SCC 8: Held that claims should be decided sympathetically with a probability approach.
- Namdeo (2013) 14 SCC 225: Clarified requirements for documents under the scheme and relaxed them in cases where obtaining documents is impossible.
- Other judgments were cited to demonstrate consistent application of sympathetic interpretation and acceptance of affidavits and circumstantial evidence in similar pension claims.
FAQs
1.What did the Bombay High Court decide in this freedom fighter pension case?
The Court directed the State to grant the freedom fighter pension from 2004, rejecting the State’s refusal based on strict documentation requirements.
2. Are government records mandatory for claiming freedom fighter pension under the ‘Underground Freedom Fighter’ category?
No, the Court clarified that such documents under Clauses 3 and 4 are optional if unavailable, and claims should be decided based on probabilities.
3. What principle did the Court emphasise for freedom fighter pension claims?
The Court reiterated that claims should be decided sympathetically, using the principle of probability rather than strict proof, respecting the scheme’s purpose.