Himachal Pradesh High Court | Widow of Freedom Fighter Entitled to Pension Under 1980 Scheme | Liberal Approach Required, Hyper-Technical Rejection Set Aside
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, and Justice Ranjan Sharma dismissed two appeals challenging a judgment that had directed grant of financial assistance to the widow of a freedom fighter. The Bench held that the widow was entitled to pension under both the Central and State Schemes and directed that arrears be released within a stipulated period. The Court further directed that failure to comply would result in penal interest on the arrears. Both appeals, filed separately by the Union of India and the State of Himachal Pradesh, were dismissed, thereby upholding the earlier judgment in favor of the petitioner.
The appeals were filed against the judgment dated 02.01.2017 delivered in a writ petition instituted by the widow of a freedom fighter. The petitioner had sought pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, from the date of her application, along with arrears and interest. She also prayed for a direction to the State to decide her application expeditiously as per the law laid down in Mukand Lal Bhandari v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 2127.
The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition, directing grant of financial assistance under the updated State Scheme, namely, "Scheme for the Grant of Financial Assistance by the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the Freedom Fighters of Himachal Pradesh," with effect from 01.01.2012, being the date of knowledge. Directions were also issued for the grant of pension under both the Central and State Schemes. It was further recorded that there was no material to establish that the husband of the petitioner, Teg Singh, had not undergone sufferings owing to externment, supported by affidavits of fellow freedom fighters.
The appeals were filed by the Union of India and the State, challenging the said directions. The rejection of the original application dated 11.04.2007 had been the subject matter, with the Union contending that adequate and acceptable evidence had not been furnished. The grounds for rejection included lack of valid documentary evidence, absence of Non-availability of Records Certificate (NARC), and concerns regarding the eligibility of certifiers.
The Court examined Clause 9 of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, particularly provisions relating to evidence required for proving claims of internment or externment. It noted that certificates from veteran freedom fighters who themselves had undergone imprisonment for five years or more could serve as corroborative evidence. The petitioner had furnished such certificates, including one issued by Sant Ram, Advocate, a former Home Minister and Superintendent of Police of Bilaspur State, certifying Teg Singh’s participation in the Praja Mandal movement and his subsequent externment in 1946.
Additional corroborative certificates were appended by other veteran freedom fighters, including Narottam Dutt Shashtri and Ganga Ram, certifying that Teg Singh had undergone externment from 1946 to 1948. These were also supported by affidavits and personal knowledge certificates. The rejection order dated 11.04.2007 had discounted these on technical grounds, citing absence of official record and deficiencies in certifiers’ qualifications.
The Court recorded that Teg Singh had applied for pension as early as 22.08.1975, subsequent to obtaining certification dated 19.08.1975. Despite directions issued in 1996 and 2006 to consider his application, it was rejected in 2007. Teg Singh passed away on 23.01.2008. His widow thereafter pursued the claim, filing the writ petition which was allowed in 2017.
The Bench stated that “in spite of lament expressed by the Apex Court in Mukand Lal Bhandari’s case regarding the high objective of the Scheme… the State and the Union of India still continue to litigate and have objected to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge.” The Court reiterated that the scheme was intended to honor and mitigate the sufferings of freedom fighters who had sacrificed for the country.
Referring to Gurdial Singh v. Union of India, (2001) 8 SCC 8, the Bench recorded that “a liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking pension under the Scheme and it was on the basis of evidence that is probabilised and a presumption is required to be drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence.”
On examining the rejection order dated 11.04.2007, the Court noted that the reasoning included absence of acceptable evidence verified by the State Government, absence of valid NARC, and questions over the eligibility of the certifier Sant Ram. The Court, however, recorded that the certificate issued by Sant Ram was corroboratory documentary evidence within the scheme’s terms. “In our considered opinion, the said certificate itself was sufficient to bring it within the parameters of other corroboratory documentary evidence as per terms of the Scheme itself.”
The Court observed that affidavits of fellow freedom fighters who had themselves undergone externment were also appended and could not be ignored. The Bench noted that “all these factors were never considered in the right perspective while passing the impugned order dated 11.04.2007 by the Union of India in the form of substantial corroboratory documents available on record.”
The Court further recorded: “The Union of India had gone to reject the claim for the reasons which are not sustainable inspite of law which has time and again reminded them of their obligations and their pronouncements for the faith of the Freedom Fighters.”
The Bench noted that Teg Singh had pursued his claim since 1975, but it had been rejected despite multiple directions. His widow, in her 80s when the writ petition was allowed in 2017, continued the legal battle. The Court stated: “the widow cannot be expected to produce evidence at this tangential stage to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubts and it is a beneficial legislation while granting the said relief.”
The Union had relied on Union of India v. Krishna Modi (2022) and Union of India v. Kaushalaya Devi (2007) to argue against the grant of benefits. The Court distinguished these cases, noting that in Krishna Modi, the claimant was only 12 years old at the time of the freedom movement, and the claim was made decades later, unlike in the present case where application was made immediately after certification in 1975. In Kaushalaya Devi, the issue was limited to the date from which pension was to be granted, not rejection of claim.
The Court concluded that the rejection was unsustainable, observing that “we do not find any valid reasons to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge keeping in view the purpose of Scheme, as already highlighted.”
The Division Bench recorded that “keeping in view the interim order dated 09.10.2017, the arrears of the monetary benefits under the Swatantrata Sainani Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, could not be disbursed to the writ petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2012, thus the arrears be made good as per the impugned judgment within two months from today.” It was further directed that “in case the amount is not paid within the period of two months, the same will carry penal interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the arrears.”
“Accordingly, both these appeals are dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India [Senior Advocate] with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General
For the Respondents: Ms. Vandana Kuthiala and Mr. Devi Singh, Advocates; Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General; Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India [Senior Advocate] with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate
Case Title: Union of India v. Mahanti Devi and another; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mahanti Devi and another
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:30407-DB
Case Number: LPA No.102 of 2017 a/w LPA No.96 of 2017
Bench: Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma
