http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil)  2259 of 2008

PETITIONER: Union of India & Ors

RESPONDENT: Kashiswar Jana

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/03/2008

BENCH: DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2259 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8873 of 2006)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.  

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned  Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowing the Writ  Petition filed by the respondent.  The controversy lies within a  very narrow compass.  The respondent claimed to be a  freedom fighter and claimed freedom fighter’s pension.  The  application in this regard was filed on 28th July, 1981.  The  application was rejected by the Central Government on  29.1.1993.  A Writ Petition was filed before the Calcutta High  Court questioning correctness of the order of the Single Judge.   The writ petition was allowed and the present appellants were  directed to release pension to the respondent.  

3.       Feeling aggrieved by the said order the Division Bench  was moved in a Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed.  A  special leave petition was also filed before this Court which  was rejected as barred by time.  The question that arose was  the date from which the respondent was entitled to pension.   Appellants released the pension with effect from 4th August,  1993 when the writ petition filed by the respondent was  allowed by the learned Single Judge.  Respondent claimed  pension from the date of filing of the application.  According to  him he is entitled to pension from 28.7.1981 when the  application was filed by him.  Reference was made to the  decision of this Court in M.L. Bhandari v. Union of India [AIR  1993 SC 2127]. 4.      Stand of the present appellants was that since the claim  of the respondent could not be decided till 1993 because of the  non co-operative attitude of the State Government regarding  supply of requisite information.  In any event, the benefit of  doubt was granted to the respondent and in line with the  order passed by the High Court earlier pension was granted  from the date of order i.e. 4th August, 1993. The High Court  did not accept the stand.  

5.      In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant  submitted that the view of the High Court is clearly untenable  because the question whether respondent was entitled to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

pension and whether he fulfilled the guidelines was under  examination.  Definite material was not placed by the State  Government and only he was given benefit of doubt and  because of the order of the High Court pension was granted to  him.

6.      Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand  supported the order of the High Court.

7.       Almost similar issue came up for consideration before  this Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Kaushalaya Devi  (2007(9) SCC 525), wherein it was inter alia observed as  follows:

"3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and  perused the record. The short question in this  case is whether the freedom fighters’ pension  should be granted to the respondent from the  date of the application or the date of the order  granting the pension. 4. It has been held by this Court in Govt. of  India v. K.V. Swaminathan1 that where the  claim is allowed on the basis of benefit of doubt,  the pension should be granted not from the date  of the application but from the date of the order. 5. In the present case, we have perused the  record and found that it is stated therein that  the claim was allowed on the basis of secondary  nature of evidence. In other words, the claim  was not allowed on the basis of jail certificate  produced by the claimant but on the basis of  oral statement of some other detenu. Hence, we  are of the opinion that the pension should be  granted from the date of the order and not from  the date of the application. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has  relied on the judgment of this Court in Mukund  Lal Bhandari v. Union of India(AIR 1993 SC  2127) 7. In our opinion that decision is  distinguishable as it has been stated therein  that the pension cannot be granted from any  date prior to the application. In our opinion this  does not mean that it cannot be granted from a  date subsequent to the application. 8. For the reasons given above this appeal is  allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside  and it is directed that the pension will be  granted only from the date of the order for  granting pension and not from the date of the  application.

8.      Keeping in view what has been stated by this Court in  Kaushalaya Devi’s case (supra) we direct the pension is to be  granted from the date of the High Court’s order i.e. 4.8.1993.

9.      The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any  order as to costs.