Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.        5344      OF     2012   (@     SLP     (C)     NO.     8899     OF     2010)   

Kamalbai Sinkar ….Appellant

VERSUS State of Maharashtra & Ors.                     .…Respondents

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the  

High Court in the Writ Petition in which the claim of the  

appellant’s husband for grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension  

came to be rejected.  Today the original applicant is not  

available and his wife is pursuing this litigation.  By a  

Government Resolution dated 04.07.1995, after making  

1

Page 2

references to various other earlier resolutions of the  

Government of Maharashtra relating to grant of Freedom  

Fighters’  Pension, the criteria for grant of Freedom  

Fighters’  Pension was specified under two different  

categories, namely, one under “Prisoners Freedom  

Fighter”  and the other under the category of  

“Underground Freedom Fighter”.  The claim of the  

appellant’s husband was under the second category,  

namely, “Underground Freedom Fighter”.   

3. For grant of pension under the said category  

following requisites were stipulated:

“ E) Underground Freedom Fighter:-

Those freedom fighters who were under  ground and doing a work in a movement of Quit  India 1942-44 and Hydrabad Mukti Sangram 1947- 48.  They submit the following necessary  certificates:

1)Required to quit house and stay outside.

2)Required to leave education or removed  from Educational Institutions.

3) Was so beaten by the police that     caused  disability.

2

Page 3

2) The Certificates of two Freedom Fighters who  were convicted for minimum two years or who  were declared absconding or who remained  absconded for at least two years and along with  such certificates, the Proclamation of conviction or  absconding or supporting affidavit of person  issuing such certificate alongwith the orders of  Government.

4) The certified copy, if any, Government  document of that time is available regarding the  underground.

5) If any information about the name published  in newspapers, the original newspaper.

6) At the time of remark, District Gaurao  Committee shall submit their opinion.”

4. The said Resolution was issued with the consent of  

the Finance Department bearing reference No. C.R-

1183/94/VY-4 dated 10.11.1994.  Pursuant to the said  

resolution dated 04.07.1995, the husband of the appellant  

forwarded his application dated 05.08.1995 through the  

Collector of Amravati.  Along with the said application, he  

also enclosed certain Annexures (viz) a certificate of  

renowned freedom fighter dated 24.04.1984 by name  

Shankar Pandurangji Choudhari, a certificate issued by Mr.  

3

Page 4

Maganlal Bagdi, Ex-MP, Hoshangabad along with his own  

certificate, a certificate of Patwari Kasba, Warud Division,  

Taluk Warud dated 29.09.1981, a certificate dated  

08.06.1981 of freedom fighter S.P.Choudhary of Warud  

Taluk, Amravati District, a certificate issued by the office  

of Naib Tehsildar, M.K. Puranik dated 05.08.1961 in favour  

of Shankar Pandurang Choudhary about the  

imprisonments suffered by him and a medical certificate  

dated 15.08.1981 issued by Dr. S.G. Choudhari in favour  

of the applicant about his participation in Satyagraha  

Morcha on 13.08.1942, the injuries suffered by him in the  

Lathi Charge and the treatment given to him between  

13.08.1942 to 15.08.1942.

5. Based on an earlier order passed by the Nagpur  

Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition No.424 of 2007,  

the Collector of Amravati in his letter dated 29.10.2009  

informed the appellant that her husband’s claim for grant  

of Freedom Fighters’  Pension was submitted to the  

Government along with recommendation of the Gaurav  

4

Page 5

Samiti dated 20.12.1996.  The appellant was advised to  

contact the Government.  However, in the order of the  

State Government dated 22.01.2008 communicated to the  

Collector of Amravati, it was stated that there was no  

concrete evidence in proof of the participation of the  

freedom fight movement by the husband of the appellant  

and his claim for grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension was,  

therefore, rejected.  The Collector was directed to  

communicate the same to the appellant.  

6. Having perused the above materials on record, at the  

very outset, we wish to refer to the observations made by  

this Court in regard to the grant of Freedom Fighter’s  

Pension in the decision reported in Gurdial Singh v.  

Union of India & Ors. [2001 (8) SCC 8].  In paragraph  

7 of the judgment, this Court has highlighted the manner  

in which such claims are to be considered for grant of  

Freedom Fighters’ Pension.  It will be worthwhile to make  

a reference to the said passage before expressing our  

conclusion with regard to the claim of the appellant’s  

5

Page 6

husband in the case on hand.  Paragraph 7 reads as  

under:

“7.The standard of proof required in such  cases is not such standard which is required in  a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon  rival contentions or evidence of the parties.  As  the object of the Scheme is to honour and to  mitigate the sufferings of those who had given  their all for the country, 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.  It  should not be forgotten that the persons  intended to be covered by the Scheme had  suffered for the country about half-a-century  back and had not expected to be rewarded for  the imprisonment suffered by them.  Once the  country has decided to honour such freedom  fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the  job of examining the cases of such freedom  fighters are expected to keep in mind the  purpose and object of the Scheme.  The     case    of     the     claimants     under     this     Scheme     is     required    to     be     determined     on     the     basis     of     the    probabilities     and     not     on     the     touchstone     of     the    test     of   “  beyond     reasonable     doubt  ”  .    Once on  the basis of the evidence it is probabilised that  the claimant had suffered imprisonment for the  cause of the country and during the freedom  struggle, a presumption is required to be  drawn in his favour unless the same is  rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable  evidence.”

[emphasis added]

6

Page 7

7. Keeping the above broad principles in mind, when we  

analyse the claim of the appellant’s husband, we find that  

the appellant’s husband had filed along with his application  

dated 05.08.1995, a host of documents in support of his  

claim.  They were shown as Annexures to his application  

and the details of which have been referred to by us in the  

earlier part of this order.  In fact after the order of the  

Nagpur Bench passed in WP No.424 of 2007, the  

Government in its communication dated 23.11.2007  

addressed to the Collector of Amravati stated that the  

claim of the appellant’s husband was not traceable and,  

therefore, all related documents were once again required  

to be collected and submitted to the Government including  

recommendations of Gaurav Samiti as well as the  

Collector’s comments.  Apparently, pursuant to the said  

communication, the Collector in his letter dated  

29.10.2009 informed the appellant that the case  

submitted by her husband for getting pension as  

7

Page 8

Underground Freedom Fighter was submitted to the  

Government along with office letter bearing  

No.KL/SS/PP/KV/3216 dated 20.12.1996 and the  

recommendations of Gaurav Samiti.   

8. In the said circumstances, we only state that the  

appellant’s husband made a genuine effort to collect all  

those credentials in his support as required under the  

Resolution of the State Government dated 04.07.1995,  

and forwarded them to the State Government along with  

his application dated 05.08.1995.  When the Collector,  

Amrawati forwarded his letter dated 20.12.1996 and  

reiterated his recommendation in his subsequent  

communications dated 14.10.2007 and 30.11.2007 there  

was no reason for the State Government to simply reject  

the application without assigning any reason.  A perusal of  

the documents enclosed by the appellant’s husband along  

with his application disclose that the appellant’s husband  

made out a case for grant of Freedom Fighters’  Pension  

under the category “Underground Freedom Fighter”.  

8

Page 9

Applying the broad principles laid down in the decision of  

this Court in Gurdial Singh (supra), it will have to be  

held that there was nothing more for the State to examine  

to honour the claim of the appellant’s husband for grant of  

Freedom Fighters’  Pension.  The claim of the appellant’s  

husband cannot be held to be a fraudulent one or without  

any supporting material.

9. In our considered view, the High Court ought to have  

examined the grievance of the appellant before confirming  

the order of rejection of the respondent State.  In the  

circumstances, the appeal deserves to be allowed.  The  

impugned orders are set aside. The respondent State is  

directed to grant Freedom Fighters’  Pension in favour of  

the appellant’s husband and since he is no more, grant the  

same with all arrears to the appellant by passing  

appropriate orders expeditiously preferably within four  

weeks from the date of communication of copy of this  

order.  We hope and trust that the State Government will  

not indulge in any further delay in the matter of grant of  

9

Page 10

pension so as to enable the appellant to avail the benefits  

at least during her life time.  The appeal stands allowed  

with the above directions to the respondent State.  No  

costs.

…..……….…………………………...J.                            [T.S. Thakur]

................... ………………………………J.

           [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]

New Delhi; July 20, 2012

1