REPORTABLE   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5215 OF 2009

Mahender Singh     .... Appellant (s)

Versus

Union of India             .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  final  judgment  

and order dated 30.01.2006 of the High Court of Delhi at  

New Delhi  in L.P.A.  No.  710 of  2005 whereby the High  

Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein  

and  set  aside  the  order  passed  by  the  learned  single  

Judge.

2) Brief facts:

1

a) According to the appellant,  he is a freedom fighter,  

who sacrificed his studies in the freedom struggle and had  

taken active part in the 1942 agitation and was forced to  

remain an absconder for more than four years i.e. from  

20.08.1942  till  September,  1946  as  he  was  made  an  

accused in G.R. Case No. 985 of 1942 and in Mokama P.S.  

Case No. 259 (8) of 1942 titled State vs. Mahender Singh  

& Ors., relating to the incidents of burning and damaging  

of  a  post  office,  railway  line  etc.  at  Mokama  during  

freedom  struggle.   In  1972,  Freedom  Fighters’  Pension  

Scheme was introduced by the Government of  India for  

the grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their  

families.   In  1980,  the  benefit  of  the  Swatantra  Sainik  

Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (formerly known as ‘the  

Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme, 1972’) was extended  

to all the Freedom fighters as a token of Samman (respect)  

to them.   

b) On  07.09.1981,  the  appellant  herein  filed  an  

application  for  pension  under  the  Scheme  which  was  

2

registered on 20.06.1981.  After a detailed enquiry by the  

Bihar  Government,  the  matter  was  placed  before  the  

Advisory  Board  on  12/13.12.1995  which  recommended  

for release of pension to the appellant w.e.f. 01.08.1980.  

In  the  absence  of  any  reply,  the  appellant  again  on  

09.04.1997 sent a letter to the Government for releasing  

his pension.  Thereafter on 19.09.1997, the appellant sent  

a notice through his advocate which remained unreplied.  

On 15.12.1997, the appellant filed a petition being W.P.  

No. 1248 of 1998 before the High Court of Delhi.   Vide  

order  dated  26.03.1998,  the  petition  was  withdrawn by  

the appellant on the assurance of the learned counsel for  

the respondents therein that as and when they got  the  

clarifications  sought  for  in  the  representation  of  the  

appellant, the representation shall be disposed of.   The  

High  Court  further  directed  the  Government  to  take  a  

decision on the representation within three months of the  

receipt of the clarifications.  Not getting any reply from the  

Government,  on  17.07.1998,  the  appellant  sent  a  

3

reminder  to  the  respondent.    On  10.12.1998,  the  

appellant filed a Contempt Petition bearing C.C.P. No. 489  

of  1998  before  the  High  Court  in  which  a  show cause  

notice was issued to the Government for non-complying  

with its order.  However, on 17.12.1998, the appellant got  

a registered letter from the Government refusing to grant  

him  the  freedom  fighter  pension.   On  17.04.2001,  the  

High Court dismissed the contempt petition and observed  

that  if  the appellant  herein is  aggrieved of  the order  of  

rejection of his grant of pension by the Government, he  

may pursue appropriate remedy provided in law.   

c) Against the rejection of the freedom fighter pension,  

on  28.11.2001,  the  appellant  filed  W.P.(C)  No.  7439  of  

2001 before the High Court and the same was allowed on  

24.11.2003  by  the  learned  single  Judge  with  costs  

quantified  at  Rs.10,000/-  and  also  directed  the  

Government to grant pension to the appellant under the  

Scheme w.e.f.  01.08.1980.    On not  being  released the  

pension by the Government, the appellant filed a contempt  

4

petition on 08.09.2004.  Challenging the judgment of the  

learned  single  Judge  dated  24.11.2003  in  W.P.  (C)  No.  

7439 of 2001, the Government filed L.P.A. No. 710 of 2004  

before the Division Bench of the High Court.  Vide order  

dated 30.01.2006, the Division Bench allowed the L.P.A.  

and  set  aside  the  order  of  the  learned  single  Judge.  

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred  

this  appeal  by  way  of  special  leave  petition  before  this  

Court.

3) Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the  

respondent.

4) The  only  point  for  consideration  in  this  appeal  is  

whether the appellant has made out a case for grant of  

freedom  fighters  pension  in  terms  of  Swatantra  Sainik  

Samman Pension  Scheme,  1980 (hereinafter  called  “the  

Scheme”).   According  to  the  appellant,  he  remained  

underground for more than six months as a proclaimed  

offender.   The  Scheme  provides  for  the  manner  of  

5

application,  availability  of  application  forms,  the  time  

within which the applications are to be made, how claims  

are to be proved etc.  In this case, the appellant made the  

application  on  20.06.1981  which  within  the  time  

prescribed.   

5) Now, let us consider the manner in which the claim  

is to be proved which is provided in Para 9 of the Scheme  

which reads thus:

“9. HOW  TO  PROVE  THE  CLAIMS  (EVIDENCE  REQUIRED)

The applicant should furnish the documents indicated  below whichever is applicable.

(a) IMPRINSONMENT/DETENTION ETC. Certificate  from the concerned jail  authorities  District  Magistrate  or  the  State  Government  in  case  of  non- availability  of  such  certificates  co-prisoner  certificate  from a sitting MP or MLA or from an ex-MP or an ex- MLA  specifying  the  jail  period  (annexure  I  in  the  application form)

(b) REMAINED UNDERGROUND: (i) Documentary  evidence  by  way  of  court’s/government orders proclaiming the applicant as  an offender, announcing an award on his head, or for  his arrest or ordering his detention (ii) Certificates  from veteran  freedom fighters  which  had themselves undergone imprisonment for five years  or more if the official records are not forthcoming due to  their non-availability.

(c) INTERNMENT OR EXTERNMENT

6

(i) Order of  internment or externment or any other  corroboratory documentary evidence. (ii) Certificates from prominent freedom fighters who  had themselves undergone imprisonment for five years  or  more  if  the  official  records  are  not  available.  (Annexure II in the application) Note: The  Certifier  veteran  freedom  fighters  in  respect  of  underground suffering, internment/externment and the  applicant should belong to the same administrative unit  before  the  reorganization  of  States  and  their  area  of  operation must be the same.

(d) LOSS OF PROPERTY JOB ETC. Orders  of  confiscation  and  sale  of  property  orders  of  dismissal or removal from service.”

As stated earlier, the appellant laid his claim only on the  

ground that he had remained underground for more than  

four years and from the aforesaid provision, it can be seen  

that there are two modes of providing the evidence for the  

same.   The  first  one  is  by  producing  documentary  

evidence and the second where the official records are not  

forthcoming due to their non-availability, the claim is to  

be proved by certificates from the veteran freedom fighters  

who  have  themselves  undergone  imprisonment  for  five  

years or more.  In the case of the appellant, he asserted  

that  the  official  records  are  not  traceable  due  to  non-

7

availability  and  submitted  a  certificate  from  one  Shri  

Jagdish  Singh  who  was  a  veteran  freedom  fighter.  

Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  also  brought  to  our  

notice  the  recommendation  dated  09.04.1997  of  the  

Government  of  Bihar  recommending  the  case  of  the  

appellant for payment of freedom fighters pension under  

the Scheme w.e.f. 01.08.1980.  

6) It is true that based on the particulars furnished by  

the  appellant,  the  State  Screening  Committee,  Bihar  

recommended  the  case  of  the  appellant  for  payment  of  

pension under the Central Scheme.  However, the Central  

Government in the absence of any authenticated records  

particularly the details about “underground suffering” for  

a  minimum period  of  six  months  and  finding  that  the  

certificate issued by Shri Jagdish Singh is not sufficient  

rejected the claim of the appellant.   

7) In the light of the controversy particularly, the claim  

of the appellant and the stand taken by the Government of  

India,  we  have  carefully  gone  through  the  eligibility  

8

provisions as well as relevant criteria to prove the claim  

under the Scheme.  In his application dated 07.03.1981,  

the  appellant  had  merely  indicated  that  he  remained  

underground from 1942 to 1946.  As rightly pointed out  

by the respondent, he did not indicate the details of the  

case  in  which  he  had  gone  underground.   Though the  

appellant  has placed  record  of  proceedings  which  show  

that the relevant records were not available with them, the  

fact  remains  the  said  Non-availability  of  Records  

Certificate (NARC) did not indicate the date of disposal of  

the case as well as the relevant provisions of the Indian  

Penal Code.  In such circumstances, as rightly pointed out  

by the respondent, it is not clear whether the said case, if  

any,  was related to  freedom struggle  and what  was the  

duration of the claimed suffering of the appellant.  Though  

the  appellant  had  given  an  opportunity  to  furnish  the  

name of co-accused in the same case,  who are presently  

getting  pension on the  basis  of  GR NO.  985/1942,  the  

appellant was unable to furnish such details.  

9

8) Insofar as the Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) of  

Shri Jagdish Singh, it is the stand of the Government of  

India that the same is not acceptable as the certifier was  

in jail for most of the period of the claimed suffering of the  

appellant.  In view of the same, it could not be possible for  

the certifier to verify the period as well as the reasons of  

the  claimed  suffering  of  the  appellant  based  on  his  

(Jagdish Singh) personal knowledge.

9) Though  the  State  Advisory  Committee  and  the  

Government  of  Bihar  recommended  the  case  of  the  

appellant  for  Central  Scheme,  it  is  pointed  out  by  the  

learned counsel for the respondent that the same is not  

binding  on  the  Central  Government  in  the  absence  of  

required  proof  for  the  same.  In  other  words,  the  

recommendation of the State Government is not final or  

conclusive  and  it  is  for  the  authority  of  the  Central  

Government  granting  such  pension  to  make  further  

10

inquiry  in  the  matter  in  terms  of  various  conditions  

prescribed in the Scheme and to take a final decision.  

10) In the light of the above discussion, we conclude that  

the appellant has failed to establish his claim for freedom  

fighter pension in terms of the Central  Scheme, on the  

other  hand,  we  are  in  agreement  with  the  conclusion  

arrived  at  by  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court.  

Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.  

No order as to costs.             

...…………………………………J.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)  

...…………………………………J.           (R.M. LODHA)  

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 27, 2010.   

11