Skip to main content

The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC

The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC

By - Pavni Dada*

The petitioner, Smt. Rukhminbai submitted that her husband, Asaram Daulatrao Kale (deceased), who died on April 5, 2017, was entitled to pension payments. On November 24, 1994, Asaram Daulatrao was alleged to have submitted a request for provision of pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 (“Scheme”) to the district collector of Aurangabad with the documented evidence needed. According to the petitioner, her husband had learned for the first time in January 2014 that on May 12, 1999, his pension claim was dismissed under the scheme. 

The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court observed that “...the petitioner herein has no locus standi to lay a claim to pension under the Scheme once her deceased husband’s claim to the same was rejected by the concerned Authority.”

Also Read - Rent Act would not come to the aid of a "tenant­-in-sufferance" vis -à-­vis SARFAESI Act due to the operation of Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court

The Scheme is a Central Scheme introduced in 1972 for grant of pension to the freedom fighters and their eligible dependents in case of deceased freedom fighters. Monthly pensions were seen as a sign of respect for freedom fighters’ contribution to the fight for independence. The Scheme and the Government Decree of July 4, 1995, laid down the eligibility criteria for granting pensions, according to which the petitioner was entitled to a pension being wife of a deceased freedom fighter. 

The petitioner stated that her husband had suffered many losses as a consequence of being a part of the Hyderabad Liberation Movement. Additionally, throughout the period 1947-48, he had stayed underground. The petitioner after seeking legal advice and collected all the relevant documents and submitted an application on October 9, 2020. Her pension claim was, however, rejected on November 4, 2020, in light of the government resolution dated June 2, 2016.

Also Read - The equity of redemption is a right which is subsidiary to the right of ownership: Supreme Court

It is clearly obvious that, on evidence as stipulated by the Scheme and in no other manner, pension under the Scheme may be sanctioned. Unless such evidence is available, the petitioner shall not be able to benefit from the Scheme. Moreover, the government resolution dated June 2, 2016, was also not questioned. 

“The Scheme for grant of pension to the freedom fighters is a benevolent gesture and deserves to be considered liberally, but the same cannot be construed in such a manner that the requirements prescribed for the grant thereof are rendered a dead letter.”, the bench observed.

CLICK HERE TO READ JUDGMENT.

*Pavni Dada is a 1st year student pursuing B.B.A.LL.B from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.
Labels:

Comments

  1. pilatesequipmentAugust 21, 2021 at 9:13 AM

    I always check this type of advisory post and I found your article which is related to my interest. This is a great way to increase knowledge for us. Thanks for sharing an article like this. pilates bench

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pavni DadaSeptember 3, 2021 at 1:04 AM

      Thank you, I really appreciate you taking the time to express that.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

  In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...
Post a Comment
Read more

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another.  Also Read:  Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...
Post a Comment
Read more

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.”   The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...
Post a Comment
Read more