P a g e  1 | 37  

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.987 OF 2020   

(arising out of SLP (C) No. 27297 of 2017)  

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.       ...APPELLANT(S)   

VERSUS  

SITAKANT S. DUBHASHI & ANR.   ...RESPONDENT(S)   

J U D G M E N T  

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.  

 1.  This appeal has been filed against judgment  

of High Court of Bombay at Goa at Panaji dated  

20.03.2017 allowing the writ petition filed by  

respondent No.1. The writ petition was filed by  

respondent No.1 challenging the notification dated  

17.02.2003 issued by Government of India as well  

as orders dated 16.11.2009 and 13.11.2014 issued  

by the Government of India rejecting the claim of  

respondent No.1 for pension under Swatantrata  

Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.  

P a g e  2 | 37  

2. Brief facts of this case for deciding this  

appeal are: -   

2.1. The Government of India has introduced  

Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972.  

With certain modifications, the scheme was  

renamed as Swatantrata Sainik Samman  

Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter  

referred to as “SSSP Scheme, 1980”). For  

grant of pension under the SSSP Scheme,  

1980, there were eligibility conditions.  

The freedom fighters having suffered  

minimum imprisonment of six months were  

eligible for benefit of the Scheme. The  

Government of India decided to extend the  

SSSP Scheme to the participants of Goa  

Liberation Movement who fulfilled the  

eligibility conditions under SSSP Scheme.   

The respondent had made an application to  

the Government of India for grant of SSSP  

Scheme on 19.03.1982. The respondent No.1  

was informed by the Government of India in  

the year 1985 that his case having not

P a g e  3 | 37  

recommended by the State he is not  

entitled for SSS Pension. The Government  

of India received representation from  

various quarters for grant of pension to  

all the participants of Goa Liberation  

Movement particularly to those who  

participated in the second phase of the  

movement (1954-55). The Government of  

India decided to grant freedom fighter  

pension to participants of Goa liberation  

Movement Phase-II (1954-55) under SSSP  

Scheme, 1980 by Government Order dated  

17.02.2003.  

2.2.  After liberation of Goa in 1961, the State  

of Goa has initially framed Goa, Daman &  

Diu freedom fighters welfare Rules, 1973.  

In supersession of 1973 Rules, the State  

framed the Goa freedom fighter’s welfare  

rules, 1988. Freedom fighters were defined  

in Rule 2.

P a g e  4 | 37  

2.3. The respondent had made an application for  

State pension by application dated  

28.07.2001. On the application of the  

respondent, the Government of Goa asked  

for reports from Inspector General of  

Police which was submitted by Deputy  

Inspector General of Police dated  

09.05.2002 opining that name of the  

respondent No.1 is not figuring in the  

freedom fighters register. The  

application of respondent No.1 was  

considered by the Government and the  

application of respondent No.1 for grant  

of State Pension was rejected on  

18.12.2002.  

2.4 The respondent No.1 made an application  

dated 15.04.2003 for grant of pension  

under the SSSP Scheme, 1980 for Freedom  

Fighters of Goa Liberation Movement Phase–

II (1954-55).  The State of Goa wrote a  

letter dated 13.02.2004 to the respondent

P a g e  5 | 37  

No.1 that copy of Samman Pension order  

cannot be issued to him since his case has  

not been approved so far.  The respondent  

No.1 was, however, informed that his  

application for State pension will be  

placed before the Committee for further  

action. The Committee constituted by State  

of Goa to consider the cases for grant of  

State pension considered the case of  

respondent No.1 and by proceeding dated  

23.07.2004 opined to reject the claim.      

2.5. In pursuance of announcement of State of  

Goa for re-opening of Freedom Fighters  

Scheme in 2003, the claim of large number  

of persons were entrusted to a Committee  

constituted under the Chairmanship of  

Chief Secretary. After several  

deliberations ultimately a list of 22  

persons was approved on 26.12.2007 for  

State pension in which respondent No.1 was  

also included. On 26.12.2007, the name of

P a g e  6 | 37  

respondent No.1 was approved for grant of  

State Pension and consequently, a pension  

payment order was issued on 11.03.2008 to  

respondent No.1 for grant of State Pension  

w.e.f. 01.12.2007. After receipt of State  

Pension, the respondent No.1 sent a  

representation dated 06.08.2009 to the  

Government of India for grant of SSS  

Pension from the Government of India. The  

Government of India vide letter dated  

16.11.2009 communicated respondent No.1  

that case of respondent No.1 has been  

examined and it is found that respondent  

No.1 has been granted State Pension in  

2008 only, hence, he was ineligible for  

grant of SSS Pension under the relaxed  

criteria for Goa Liberation Movement  

Phase-II. The respondent No.1 was  

communicated that participants who were in  

receipt of State Pension by 01.08.2002 are  

only eligible. On a further representation  

by respondent No.1, again a similar

P a g e  7 | 37  

communication was sent by the Government  

of India to respondent No.1 dated  

13.11.2014.   

2.6. The respondent No.1 filed a writ petition  

No.229 of 2016 in the High Court of  

Bombay, Goa at Panaji, praying for  

following relief:  

“A. Declaration that the decision  

of Government of India dated  

4/2/03 and the notification dated  

17/2/03 to the extent it  

restricts the entitlement of  

pension to freedom fighter  

participants of Goa Liberation  

Movement Phase II who were in  

receipt of pension as on  

1/08/2002 is arbitrary null and  

void being violative of Article  

14 of Constitution of India and  

for a declaration that freedom  

fighters recognized by the  

Government of Goa and in receipt  

of State Government pension  

notwithstanding the date being  

later than 1/08/02 are entitled  

to pension.  

B. Writ of mandamus, writ in the  

nature of mandamus directing the  

respondent to consider the  

application of petitioner for  

grant of pension under the  

Swatantrata Sainik Sanman  

Pension Scheme 1980 Goa

P a g e  8 | 37  

Liberation Movement Phase-II  

(1954-55).  

C. For writ of certiorari, a writ  

in the nature of certiorari or  

any other writ direction and  

other quashing and setting aside  

Communication dated 16/11/09 and  

13/11/2014 passed by the Ministry  

of Home Affairs.”  

 2.7. The appellant could not file any reply to  

the writ petition nor case of the  

respondent No.1 was specifically denied.  

The High Court after hearing the parties  

allowed the writ petition and directed the  

appellant to grant the pension under SSSP  

Scheme to the respondent No.1 w.e.f.  

11.03.2008. The Government of India  

aggrieved by the said judgment has come up  

with this appeal. A Counter affidavit has  

been filed by respondent No.1 as well as  

respondent No.2, the State of Goa. The  

Government of India has filed an  

additional affidavit dated 02.12.2019. A  

rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by  

the appellant.

P a g e  9 | 37  

3. We have heard Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG for  

appellant, Mrs. Mugdha Pande has been heard for  

respondent No.1 and Shri Pratap Venugopal has  

appeared for State of Goa.  

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that  

to the participants of Goa Liberation Movement,  

Phase-II, the SSSP scheme was extended with the  

conditions that only those applicants shall be  

eligible to receive the benefits of the scheme who  

are in receipt of State Pension on 01.08.2002. It  

is submitted that issue of fixation of date was  

deliberated and consciously included in the scheme  

which is apparent from relevant noting brought on  

record along with the additional affidavit.  

5. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 has  

been granted State Pension on 11.03.2008 only and  

he did not fulfil the condition of the scheme which  

was introduced by the Government Order dated  

17.02.2003. The Government of India did not commit  

an error in rejecting the claim of the respondent

P a g e  10 | 37  

No.1. High Court has erred in holding that cut-off  

date 01.08.2002 has no relevance. It is further  

submitted that High Court committed error in  

allowing the writ petition of respondent No.1 who  

did not fulfil the eligibility for grant of SSSP  

Scheme.  

6. Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Ms.  

Mugdha Pande, vehemently refuting the submission  

of Counsel for the appellant contends that the  

respondent No.1 had been issued Identity Card of  

freedom fighter in the year 1984 and he had made  

an application for grant of State Pension on  

28.07.2001 which although was rejected in December  

2002 but subsequently State itself having granted  

pension w.e.f. 01.12.2007, the respondent No.1 is  

eligible for grant of SSS Pension.  

7. It is submitted that there is no rationale for  

fixing cut-off date 01.08.2002 for grant of SSS  

Pension to participants of Goa Liberation  

Movement, Phase-II and there is no nexus with

P a g e  11 | 37  

object sought to be achieved. All freedom fighters  

who are in receipt of State Pension are eligible  

to SSSP Scheme.   

8. Learned counsel appearing for State of Goa  

submitted that claim of respondent No.1 for grant  

of State Pension was rejected in December 2002  

after due enquiry and after obtaining the report  

from the Deputy Inspector General of Police and  

other authorities. Learned counsel for the state  

of Goa has also produced the original records  

pertaining to claim of state pension by respondent  

No.1 which contains the application made by  

respondent No.1 in the year 2001. The reports  

obtained on the said application and decision,  

rejecting the claim. The record also contains the  

subsequent application of respondent No.1 after  

reopening of the State Pension Scheme in year 2003  

and approval of grant of pension to twenty-two  

freedom fighters which included the name of  

respondent No.1 also w.e.f.01.12.2007.

P a g e  12 | 37  

9. We have considered the submissions of learned  

counsel for the parties and perused the record.   

10. The issue to be considered in the appeal is as  

to whether the respondent No.1 was entitled for  

grant of SSS Pension as per the scheme dated  

17.02.2003 of the Government of India and whether  

the High Court had taken correct decision in  

allowing the writ petition of respondent No.1 and  

further as to whether cut-off date as fixed in the  

Government Order dated 17.02.2003 that applicant  

should be in receipt of State Pension by 01.08.2002  

is a valid condition.   

11. For grant of State Pension, the State of Goa  

has framed Rules in the year 1973 and 1988. Goa  

freedom fighter’s welfare Rules, 1988 contains the  

eligibility for grant of freedom fighters’ pension  

to persons who participated in National Liberation  

Movement or Liberation of Goa. Rule 2 is a  

definition clause, Rule 2(1) defined freedom  

fighters which is to the following effect: -

P a g e  13 | 37  

“2(I). “Freedom Fighter” means any  

person who on account of participation  

in National Liberation Movement or  

liberation of Goa, had undergone the  

sufferings listed below:  

(a) He/she had been sentenced to  

imprisonment for not less than 15  

days: or  

(b) He/she was had suffered  

imprisonment for not less than 15  

days (including detention as  

under trial prisoner; or as  

prisoner in police custody for  

interrogation)  

(c) He/she was killed in action;  

or  

(d) He/she was sentenced to  

death; or  

(e) He/she died due to police or  

military firing or lathi charge  

or hit by any instruments; or   

(f) He/she died after release  

from Portuguese prison or Custody  

provided that the death is  

directly attributable to ill  

treatment/brutalities/torture  

meted out to him/her during  

detention or  

(g) He/she lost his/her job or  

means of livelihood or the whole  

or substantial part of his/her  

property due to such  

participation, dismissal or  

removal from Government  

service/semi-Government  

Organisation /educational

P a g e  14 | 37  

institution any other registered  

body duly supported by the record  

of the said body; or  

(h) He/she had gone underground  

for not less than one year but  

did not suffer imprisonment if  

he/she was declared by the  

Portuguese authorities as  

proclaimed offender or a warrant  

of arrest was issued against  

him/her by the Portuguese or an  

order of detention was issued  

against him/her by the  

Portuguese; or  

(i) He/she became permanently  

incapacitated on account of  

participation in the liberation  

movement;”  

12. Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme,  

1980, is a scheme of Central Government for grant  

of pension for those who participated in freedom  

movement of the country. Paragraph 3 of the SSSP  

Scheme, 1980 provides for who is eligible, which  

is to the following effect: -  

“3. WHO IS ELIGIBLE?   

For the purpose of grant of Samman  

pension under the scheme, a freedom  

fighter is: -   

(a) A person who had suffered a  

minimum imprisonment of six  

months in the mainland jails

P a g e  15 | 37  

before Independence. However,  

ex-INA personnel will be  

eligible for pension if the  

imprisonment/detention  

suffered by them was outside  

India. The minimum period of  

actual imprisonment for  

eligibility of pension has  

been reduced to three months,  

in case of women and SC/ST  

freedom fighters from  

01.08.1980.   

EXPLANATION   

1.  Detention under the  

orders of the competent  

authority will be  

considered as  

imprisonment.   

2.  Period of normal  

remission up to one  

month will be treated as  

part of actual  

imprisonment.   

3.  In the case of a trial  

ending in conviction,  

under trial period will  

be counted towards  

actual imprisonment  

suffered.   

4.  Broken period of  

imprisonment will be  

totalled up for  

computing the  

qualifying period.   

(b) A person who remained  

underground for more than six  

months provided he was:  

P a g e  16 | 37  

1. a proclaimed offender; or    

2. one on whom an award for  

arrest/head was announced;  

or   

3. one for whose detention  

order was issued but not  

served.   

(c) A person interned in his home  

or externed from his district  

provided the period of  

internment/externment was six  

months or more.   

(d) A person whose property was  

confiscated or attached and  

sold due to participation in  

the freedom struggle.   

(e) A person who became  

permanently incapacitated  

during firing or lathi  

charge.   

(f) A person who lost his job  

(Central or State Government)  

and thus means of livelihood  

for participation in national  

movement.   

A MARTYR is a person who died  

or who was killed in action or in  

detention or was awarded capital  

punishment while participation in  

a National Movement for  

emancipation of India. It will  

include an ex-INA or ex-Military  

person who died fighting the  

British.”    

P a g e  17 | 37  

13. The eligibility under the SSSP Scheme, 1980  

is, thus, entirely different from the  

eligibilities for grant of pension under the Goa  

Rules, 1973 and 1988.  The applicability of SSSP  

Scheme, 1980 was also extended to other movements  

apart from mainstream of the liberation struggle  

of the country.  Paragraph 4 of the SSSP Scheme,  

1980 deals with “What are the movements/mutinies  

connected with National Freedom Struggle”, which  

is to the following effect: -  

“WHAT ARE THE MOVEMENTS/MUTINIES  

CONNECTED WITH NATIONAL FREEDOM  

STRUGGLE   

4. Apart from the mainstream of the  

liberation struggle the  

movements/mutinies which were  

directed against the British (French  

in case of Pondicherry and  

Portuguese in case of Goa) with  

freedom of the country as its  

ultimate goal are also treated as  

part of National Freedom Struggle  

for the purpose of grant of pension  

unless any movement(s) is  

specifically decided as not  

qualifying for the grant of Samman  

pension.   

The Movements for merger of  

erstwhile Princely States within the  

Indian Union after 15th August, 1947

P a g e  18 | 37  

and the freedom struggle in the  

former French and Portuguese  

possession in India (Colonies) are  

considered as part of the National  

Freedom Movement for the purpose of  

grant of Samman Pension under  

Scheme.”  

14. Thus, movements/mutinies, which were directed  

with regard to Portuguese in case of Goa was also  

covered by the said SSSP Scheme.  Thus, Freedom  

Fighters of the Goa, who were eligible according  

to the SSSP Scheme, 1980 were also eligible to  

apply for SSSP Scheme, 1980.  The respondent No.1  

himself had applied for grant of SSS Pension  

Scheme, 1980 in the year 1982 itself as noted  

above.    

15. Although, Goa Freedom Fighters, who fulfil the  

conditions under SSSP Scheme, 1980 were eligible  

for grant of pension, the Representations were  

received from various quarters for grant of pension  

to all the participants of Goa Liberation Movement  

particularly to those, who participated in second  

phase of movement (1954-55), which issue was under

P a g e  19 | 37  

examination by the Home Ministry.  The letter dated  

19.08.2002 written to the Chief Secretary of  

Government of Maharashtra/Rajasthan/Haryana/Goa/  

Madhya Pradesh/Uttar Pradesh clearly mentions the  

above fact, which is to the following effect:-  

“No.8/10/99-FF(P)  

Government of India/Bharat Sarkar  

Ministry of Home Affairs/Girh  

Mantralaya   

Freedom Fighters Division  

****  

Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market,   

Date, New Delhi, the 19 August,2002.   

To   

The Chief Secretary,   

Government of  

Maharashtra/Rajasthan/Haryana/Goa/  

Madhya Pradesh/Uttar Pradesh.   

Subject: - Grant of Freedom Fighters  

Pension to the participants of  

Goa Liberation Movement under  

the "Swatantrata Sainik Samman  

Pension Scheme, 1980”   

******  

Sir,   

I am directed to say that the  

participants of Goa Liberation Movement  

who fulfilled the eligibility criteria  

of "Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension  

Scheme, 1980" have been sanctioned  

freedom fighters' pension by the Central  

Government. However, representations/  

requests have been received from various

P a g e  20 | 37  

quarters including VIPs for grant of  

pension to all the participants of Goa  

Liberation Movement particularly to  

those who participated in the Second  

phase of the Movement (1954-55). This  

issue is under examination of this  

Ministry for quite a long time.   

2. You may be aware that the Second  

phase of the Movement was organized in  

1954-55. It is said that Portuguese  

Military authorities shot dead various  

Satyagrahis including some batch  

leaders and a large number of  

participants were physically pushed  

back into the adjoining territories.  

Thus, the participants of this Movement  

were never arrested, tried and punished  

by the Portuguese Government and/or by  

the Martial Law Court but physically  

thrown back out of Goa. There is no  

authenticated record as to how many  

Satyagrahis were thrown back primarily  

because no such records were maintained.  

In the absence of any records of the  

sufferings of die participants, they  

could not be sanctioned FF pension as  

they do not fulfil the eligibility  

criteria laid down under the Scheme.   

3. Ministry of Home Affairs is  

considering that the eligibility  

criteria may be relaxed to provide  

pension under the "SSSP Scheme,1980" to  

the freedom fighters of Goa Liberation  

Movement, Phase II (1954-55) who have  

already been sanctioned pension by the  

State Government by 1.8.2002. To examine  

this proposal further, it is requested  

that the authenticated list of all those

P a g e  21 | 37  

freedom fighters (indicating details of  

their names, father's name, addresses  

and date of sanction of pension by the  

State Government) who have been  

sanctioned freedom fighters pension by  

State Government up to 1.8.2002 for  

their taking part in the above Movement,  

may be sent to the Ministry of Home  

Affairs (Freedom Fighters Division)  

urgently so that the proposal may be  

processed further.   

Yours faithfully,  

(Abdul Rashid)   

Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India”  

16. The Central Government after examining the  

representations received from various quarters  

decided to extend the SSSP Scheme, 1980 to the  

participants of Goa Liberation Movement.       

17. The SSSP Scheme has been extended by relaxing  

the conditions contained therein to the  

participants of Goa Liberation Movement, Phase-II  

(1954-55) by Government Order dated 17.02.2003.  

Paragraph 1 of the scheme is as follows: -  

“1. I am directed to refer to this  

Ministry’s letter of even number dated  

16th/19th August, 2002 on the above  

subject and to inform you that it has

P a g e  22 | 37  

now been decided to grant central  

pension to the participants of 2nd Phase  

of Goa Liberation movement (1954-55) who  

have been granted freedom fighters  

pension by the State Government by 1st  

August, 2002, by relaxing the  

eligibility criteria under the  

Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension  

Scheme, 1980.”  

18. The Scheme dated 17.02.2003 clearly provided  

that the Central Pension is to be granted to the  

participants of the second phase of Goa Liberation  

Movement who have been granted freedom fighter  

pension by the State Government by 01.08.2002.  

Whether the condition of cut-off date of 01.08.2002  

as fixed in the Scheme has any rationale or the  

said date is arbitrary and despite not fulfilling  

the such condition, the respondent is entitled for  

grant of pension are the main questions to be  

answered.  

19. We may notice that before the High Court the  

appellant had not filed any reply nor gave any  

justification to restrict the entitlement of  

pension of freedom fighters who were in receipt of  

State Pension as on 01.08.2002. The appellant

P a g e  23 | 37  

having not filed any reply, the High Court held  

that so far as the averments and prayers of the  

writ petitions are concerned, there being no  

specific denial nor even reply filed by the  

respondent, therefore, contentions and ground  

raised by the petitioner need to be accepted.   

20. When this case was being heard by this Bench,  

a query was put to the counsel for the appellant  

as to what is the rationale for fixing cut-off date  

01.08.2002. By order dated 19.11.2019, parties  

were permitted to file additional affidavits  

within two weeks and it was thereafter the  

appellant has filed additional affidavit on  

03.12.2019.   

21. Learned counsel for the appellant has brought  

on record the notes of the meeting dated 02.08.2002  

chaired by Deputy Prime Minister where cut-off date  

01.08.2002 was fixed. Note contains the details of  

list of freedom fighters received from different  

states with regard to freedom fighters who took  

part in second phase of Goa Liberation Movement.

P a g e  24 | 37  

The Government of Maharashtra had enclosed a list  

of 1716 freedom fighters, the Government of  

Rajasthan had sanctioned pension to 24 persons. It  

has been noticed that total number of freedom  

fighters who may be eligible from State of  

Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar  

Pradesh, Goa and Haryana could be approximately  

3,500. It was noticed that the scheme cannot be  

kept open ended and the date fixed to consider only  

those freedom fighters eligible for relaxation  

under SSSP Scheme who had taken part in second  

phase of Goa Liberation Movement(1954-55) and who  

had already been sanctioned the freedom fighters  

pension by the concerned State Government before a  

fixed date such as 01.08.2002. It is useful to  

refer to paragraphs 3,4, and 5 of the Note: -   

“3. Hon’ble Dy.PM expressed the view  

that a large number of senior leaders  

like Prof. Madhu Dhandavate, Shri Ram  

Naik, Shri Sharad Pawar had pleaded the  

case of freedom fighters of Phase II of  

Goa Liberation Movement and the matter  

was pending for more than two years now.  

There was merit in granting them the  

benefits of the SSS Pension Scheme in  

relaxation of the eligibility criteria  

on similar grounds on which the

P a g e  25 | 37  

relaxation was given to freedom fighters  

of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. While  

appreciating our apprehension that if  

the scheme was kept open ended, we may  

be flooded with more and more  

applications, the Dy.PM was of the view  

that we may fix a date and consider only  

those freedom fighters eligible for the  

relaxation under the SSS Pension Scheme  

who had taken part in Phase II of the  

Goa Liberation Movement in 1954-55 and  

who had already been sanctioned the  

freedom fighters pension by the  

concerned State Governments before a  

fixed dated such as 01.08.2002.  

4. When the delegation led by Prof.  

Dhandavate called on the Dy.PM and  

handed over the representation as at FR,  

Dy.PM asked them about how many freedom  

fighters from which States would be  

eligible for the Pension in case  

relaxation under the Scheme were  

provided. It was pointed out by the  

delegates that there would be  

approximately 3500 freedom fighters who  

may become eligible from the States of  

Maharashtra, Haryana, Rajasthan, Madhya  

Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Goa. The  

figure excluded the freedom fighters  

from Karnataka (2225) who had been  

sanctioned pension by the State  

Government but whose pension was  

subsequently cancelled by the  

Government of Karnataka in 1995.  

5. After discussions, Dy.PM desired that  

we may take action as under: -  

(i) Provide relaxation under the  

SSS Pension Scheme, 1980 to the  

freedom fighters of Goa  

Liberation Movement, Phase II

P a g e  26 | 37  

(1954-55) who had already been  

sanctioned Pension by the State  

Governments of Maharashtra,  

Rajasthan, Haryana, Madhya  

Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Goa by  

01.08.2002.  

(ii) We may write to the State  

Governments concerned to send us  

a list of such freedom fighters,  

immediately, However, such lists  

should be confined to cases where  

the freedom fighters’ pension had  

been actually sanctioned by the  

State Government by 01.08.2002.  

(iii) The approximate figure of  

the freedom fighters eligible for  

this relaxation is 3500.  

Eligibility criteria for the  

grant of SSS Pension will be the  

grant of freedom fighters’  

pension by the State Government  

by 01.08.2002 for his having  

taken part in the Goa Liberation  

Movement during the years 1954-

55.”  

22. Subsequently, the cabinet approved the scheme  

and scheme dated 17.02.2003 was issued by the  

Government of India incorporating the cut-off date  

to 01.08.2002.  

23. From the material which has been brought on  

record, it does appear that Government of India

P a g e  27 | 37  

deliberated on the issue of cut-off date and the  

cut-off date was consciously fixed for extending  

the benefit of SSSP scheme to participants of Goa  

Liberation Movement, Phase-II. The eligibility  

under the SSSP Scheme, 1980, is entirely different  

from the eligibility of the State pension under  

the Goa Rules. Goa was liberated in 1961. State  

has framed the rules initially in 1973 and  

thereafter in 1988. Freedom Fighters were  

sanctioned pensions in aforesaid Goa Rules at least  

after 1973. The question of extension of SSSP  

scheme to the participants of Goa Liberation,  

Phase-II was being considered by the Central  

Government from the year 2000 and ultimately, it  

was extended by Scheme dated 17.02.2003. Already,  

more than forty years have been passed for Goa  

Liberation and more than 30 years have been passed  

for start of sanction of pension by the State of  

Goa. SSSP Scheme, 1980, had been extended to Goa  

Liberation Movement, Phase-II by relaxing the  

conditions which were there for grant of SSS  

Pension Scheme, 1980. When a benefit is granted in

P a g e  28 | 37  

relaxation of Scheme, it is open for the Government  

to put conditions for eligibility.   

24. In view of the above, we are of the considered  

opinion that there is a rationale for extending  

the Scheme with a cut-off date. The submission of  

learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that there  

was no nexus with the object sought to be achieved  

in fixation of cut-off date i.e. 01.08.2002.   

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits  

that when the object of SSS Pension Scheme is to  

grant the benefit of pension to all Freedom  

Fighters, who participated in the Goa Liberation  

Movement, there is no intelligible differentia  

between Freedom Fighters, who were granted State  

pension by 01.08.2002 and those, who were granted  

pension subsequent to 01.08.2002.  Elaborating the  

argument, it is further submitted that in any view  

of the matter in the Cut-off date, there is no  

nexus with the object sought to be achieved.  It  

is submitted that due to there being no  

intelligible differentia and there being no nexus

P a g e  29 | 37  

with the object sought to be achieved, the cut-off  

date 01.08.2002 was clearly arbitrary and liable  

to be struck down.   

25. We have already noticed that the SSSP Scheme,  

1980 provided for eligibilities for Freedom  

Fighters to make an application under the SSSP  

Scheme, 1980.  Freedom Fighters of the Goa were  

also included and those who fulfil the conditions  

therein were entitled to grant of the pension.  In  

the present case, we are concerned with the SSSP  

Scheme, 1980.   The object of the Scheme was to  

sanction pension under the Scheme, 1980, who fulfil  

the eligibilities as per the Scheme. The State  

pension for which Scheme and Rules have been  

formulated by different States including the State  

of Goa were on different eligibilities and the mere  

fact that a person is eligible or entitled to a  

State pension does not ipso facto makes him  

eligible for the SSSP Scheme, 1980.  The object of  

the SSSP Scheme, 1980 was to grant the Freedom  

Fighters Central Pension to those, who fulfil the

P a g e  30 | 37  

eligibility which object was clearly fulfilled in  

including the Goa Liberation Movement also under  

the Scheme.  As noted above, representations were  

received from various quarters to extend the SSSP  

Scheme, 1980 to participants of Goa Liberation  

Movement particularly, those, who participated in  

the Second phase of the Movement (1954-55).  The  

Central Government decided to relax the conditions  

of eligibility under SSSP Scheme, 1980 by Scheme  

dated 17.02.2003 and while relaxing the Scheme cut-

off date 01.08.2002 was fixed for making eligible  

the participants of Goa Liberation Movement.  We  

have already noticed the rationale for fixing the  

cut-off date, which was fixed after due  

deliberation and consideration of relevant facts.       

26. The submission of learned counsel for the  

respondent No.1 is that there was no nexus with  

the object sought to be achieved by fixing the cut-

off date 01.08.2002.  As noticed above, the object  

of SSSP Scheme, 1980 was to grant Central Pension  

to those who were eligible under the said Scheme.  

P a g e  31 | 37  

The Freedom Fighters of the Goa Liberation Movement  

were already included in the Scheme, 1980, who were  

eligible as per the said Scheme.  Thus, with regard  

to Freedom Fighters of Goa Liberation Movement,  

the Scheme, 1980 covered them and the object was  

to grant only those Freedom Fighters of Goa  

Liberation Movement, who fulfilled the eligibility  

of SSSP Scheme, 1980.  When Scheme was relaxed and  

extended to participants of the Goa Liberation  

Movement Second Phase, relaxation was granted in  

the eligibility as provided in the SSSP Scheme,  

1980 with the condition that those who are in  

receipt of State pension by 01.08.2002 should be  

extended the benefit of relaxation.  The Scheme  

was not an open-ended Scheme and relaxation was  

granted to a particular category of persons, who  

were in receipt of the State pension by 01.08.2002.   

The relaxation granted by order dated 17.02.2003  

cannot be said to be the object of the Central  

Government.  The object under SSSP Scheme, 1980  

was always and still is to grant Freedom Fighters  

pension to those who fulfil the eligibility of SSSP

P a g e  32 | 37  

Scheme, 1980.  The submission of the learned  

counsel for the respondent No.1 that object of SSSP  

Scheme, 1980 was to grant central pension to all  

those, who are in receipt of the State pension  

cannot be accepted. By relaxing, the SSSP Scheme,  

1980 for a limited category, the object of the main  

Scheme shall not be lost nor those who are not  

covered by relaxed conditions can claim right to  

grant of SSSP Scheme, 1980.  We, thus, are of the  

view that the Scheme dated 17.02.2003 has  

intelligible differentia and also nexus with the  

object. When relaxation is granted to a limited  

category, the others, who are not covered by the  

Scheme cannot claim any violation of right of  

equality.  Right of equality can be claimed only  

by those who fulfil the eligibilities under the  

SSSP Scheme, 1980.       

27. The submission which has further been pressed  

by the counsel for respondent No.1 is that when  

ultimately the state has accepted the respondent  

No.1 was entitled for State Pension, although, in

P a g e  33 | 37  

the year 2008, there is no justification for  

denying him the benefit. It is submitted that  

respondent No.1 had applied for grant of State  

Pension much before 01.08.2002 and if the State  

had wrongly rejected it earlier, the claim of the  

respondent No.1 cannot be prejudiced.   

28. We have carefully examined and looked into the  

materials before us as well as the original  

records. In the subsequent grant of pension to the  

respondent No.1 in the year 2008, there is no  

reference or claim that earlier rejection of claim  

of respondent No.1 was unjustified or was wrong.  

The scheme was reopened in the year 2003 by the  

State of Goa and in response to the reopening of  

the scheme, applications were received and after  

scrutinizing the claim of respondent No.1  

sanctioned w.e.f. 01.12.2007. The Sanction of the  

Scheme granted to the respondent from 01.12.2007  

cannot be read to mean that he was sanctioned from  

the date when his earlier application was rejected  

or from the date, he made the application.

P a g e  34 | 37  

29. The High Court has referred to and relied on  

the judgment of this Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari  

and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (1993)  

supp. 3 SCC 2. In the above case, one of the grounds  

for rejecting the application for grant of SSS  

Pension was that the petitioner had made an  

application after the date for making the  

application as specified in the scheme expired.  

This Court held that the date prescribed inviting  

the claim was more of the matter of administrative  

convenience than as a rigid time limit. In  

paragraph 7 of the judgment, following has been  

laid down by this Court: -   

“7. As regards the contention that the  

petitioners had filed their  

applications after the date prescribed  

in that behalf, we are afraid that the  

Government stand is not justifiable. It  

is common knowledge that those who  

participated in the freedom struggle  

either at the national level or in the  

erstwhile Nizam State, are scattered all  

over the country and most of them may  

even be inhabiting the remotest parts  

of the rural areas. What is more, almost  

all of them must have now grown pretty  

old, if they are alive. Where the  

freedom fighters are not alive and their  

widows and the unmarried daughters have  

to prefer claims, the position may still

P a g e  35 | 37  

be worse with regard to their knowledge  

of the prescribed date. What is more,  

if the Scheme has been introduced with  

the genuine desire to assist and honour  

those who had given the best part of  

their life for the country, it ill  

behoves the Government to raise pleas  

of limitation against such claims. In  

fact, the Government, if it is possible  

for them to do so, should find out the  

freedom fighters or their dependants and  

approach them with the pension instead  

of requiring them to make applications  

for the same. That would be the true  

spirit of working out such Schemes. The  

Scheme has rightly been renamed in 1985  

as the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension  

Scheme to accord with its object. We,  

therefore, cannot countenance the plea  

of the Government that the claimants  

would only be entitled to the benefit  

of the Scheme if they made applications  

before a particular date  

notwithstanding that in fact, they had  

suffered the imprisonment and made the  

sacrifices and were thus otherwise  

qualified to receive the benefit. We  

are, therefore, of the view that  

whatever the date on which the claimants  

make the applications, the benefit  

should be made available to them. The  

date prescribed in any past or future  

notice inviting the claims, should be  

regarded more as a matter of  

administrative convenience than as a  

rigid time-limit.”  

 30. The date for making an application in the  

Scheme, as in the above case the last date for  

application for considering the freedom fighter’s

P a g e  36 | 37  

pension may not be a rigid rule as rightly held by  

this Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari’s case but  

present is a case where SSSP Scheme has been  

extended by relaxing the scheme to Goa Liberation  

Movement, Phase-II, by fixing a cut-off date for  

consideration under the scheme which is a condition  

for grant of SSS Pension. The judgment in Mukund  

Lal Bhandari is thus distinguishable and cannot be  

pressed in service in facts of the present case.  

31. As noted above, before the High Court  

appellant could not file reply and bring the  

relevant facts and materials. The appellant ought  

to have been careful and produced relevant  

materials before the High Court for its  

consideration, but given opportunity by this  

Court, relevant materials have been brought on the  

record by way of additional Affidavit which  

materials we have perused. The appeal is being  

decided after taking into consideration the  

relevant materials brought on record.   

P a g e  37 | 37  

32. We thus are of the view that there was no error  

in rejecting the claim of respondent No.1 for grant  

of SSSP scheme as communicated by communication  

letters dated 16.11.2009 and 13.11.2014. The  

Government Scheme dated 17.02.2003 also did not  

suffer from any infirmity.   

33. In result, the appeal is allowed. The writ  

petition of the respondent No.1 stands dismissed.  

......................J.  

                                ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )  

......................J.  

                                 ( NAVIN SINHA )  

New Delhi,  

February 11, 2020.