The Delhi High Court recently directed the Centre to sanction and release family pension to the widow of a Quit India Movement freedom fighter, holding that authorities cannot deny a dependent her entitlement merely because formal recognition of the freedom fighter’s pension claim came after his death due to delays attributable to the authorities themselves.
Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, while allowing the widow’s appeal, observed that the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, formerly known as the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, embodies the nation’s “gratitude” towards freedom fighters and their families.
“The scheme embodies the nation’s gratitude towards those who endured suffering and made sacrifices in the cause of India’s freedom, and towards their families. A beneficial measure of this character must receive an interpretation that advances its object and effectuates its purpose. In the facts of the present case, the sole reason for the absence of formal sanction in favour of R N Singh was the delay attributable to the respondents (authorities) themselves,” the June 4 order read.
Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia held that the woman clearly falls within the class of persons eligible to receive family pension under the scheme.
The high court was hearing an appeal filed by one Mridula Devi, the wife of freedom fighter Rama Nand Singh, challenging the denial of family pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme.
Widow eligible for pension
- The high court found that R N Singh was an eligible freedom fighter under the scheme.
- The court noted that the status of the woman as a dependent is not in doubt.
- It was added that the said scheme itself recognises the widow of a freedom fighter as an eligible dependent for family pension after his death only if she is not remarried.
- It was found that the woman is the widow of a freedom fighter and there is nothing placed on record to indicate that she has remarried.
- The court held that she, therefore, clearly falls within the class of persons eligible to receive family pension under the scheme.
- The high court held that a party cannot be deprived of a vested right on account of delay occasioned by the very authority that opposed the claim.
- It was added that to hold otherwise would amount to permitting the authorities to derive advantage from their own default.
- The court pointed out that to deny the woman her entitlement would be to allow the authorities to benefit from their own default and would make the beneficent purpose of the scheme nugatory.
Decades-long pension battle
It was placed on record that the woman is the widow of late Rama Nand Singh (R N Singh), who actively participated in the Quit India Movement of 1942. On August 10, 1942, a criminal case was registered against Singh and his associates under the Indian Penal Code by the sub-divisional magistrate of Madhubani, Bihar.
After several unsuccessful attempts to arrest him between 1942 and 1944, the authorities issued a proclamation and attachment order against Singh on March 12, 1945. Thereafter, on May 28, 1945, he and his associates were declared proclaimed offenders, forcing them to remain underground until December 1946.
Subsequently, on December 25, 1981, Singh applied for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, formerly known as the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972.
The government of Bihar recommended his case for grant of pension in March 1985, but the Centre ultimately rejected the claim in January 2010.
Aggrieved by the rejection letter, Singh filed a petition before this court. During the pendency of the case, the freedom fighter passed away on January 30, 2011, after which his wife, Mridula Devi, became his legal representative in the case.
The single judge dismissed the plea in August 2013, and aggrieved by the same, the woman approached the division bench, which ultimately directed fresh verification of historical records by the Bihar government and ordered reconsideration of the claim. However, on November 4, 2022, the Centre again rejected the claim after re-examination.
Aggrieved by the same, she approached the court and, after years of litigation, the Delhi High Court eventually recognised him as an eligible freedom fighter on August 6, 2024 and ordered payment of pension arrears.
The present dispute arose when the authorities refused to grant family pension to the woman, arguing that Singh had not been a recognised pensioner during his lifetime. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the woman has preferred the present appeal.
Arguments
Representing the freedom fighter’s wife, advocate I C Mishra argued that the husband of his client was found to be an eligible freedom fighter and this petition should be allowed, granting her the pension.
It was added that the said order dismissed the modification application without duly examining the factual matrix and without proper consideration of the documents placed on record.
Senior Panel Counsel Nidhi Banga, representing the state, argued that the scheme is an honorary, recognition-based measure intended solely to acknowledge the sacrifices made by freedom fighters.
It was further added that the scheme is neither a statutory pension governed by the principles of service jurisprudence, nor does it possess the attributes of an enforceable service entitlement.
It was argued that the said scheme contemplates the continuation of an existing entitlement and not the origination of a new one after the death of the freedom fighter.
It was further argued that since the foundational requirement, namely that the freedom fighter must have been a recognised pensioner during his lifetime, remains unsatisfied, the very basis for a derivative claim is absent.
The Delhi High Court pointed out that denying the woman her entitlement would mean to allow the authorities to benefit from their own default. (AI-generated image) 
Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia held that the woman clearly falls within the class of persons eligible to receive family pension under the scheme.
Share
