caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Government Of India vs Sitakant S. Dubhashi on 11 February, 2020Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, Navin Sinha
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
respondent No.1 for pension under Swatantrata
Date: 2020.02.11
15:21:16 IST
Reason:
Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.
P a g e 1 | 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 2 | 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 3 | 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 4 | 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 5 | 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 6 | 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 7 | 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 8 | 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 9 | 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 10 | 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 11 | 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 12 | 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 13 | 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 14 | 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 15 | 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 16 | 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 17 | 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 18 | 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 19 | 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 20 | 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 21 | 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 22 | 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 23 | 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 24 | 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 25 | 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 26 | 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 27 | 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 28 | 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 29 | 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 30 | 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 31 | 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 32 | 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 33 | 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 34 | 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 35 | 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 36 | 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.
P a g e 37 | 37
Comments