The Supreme Court has restored the freedom fighter's pension (Samman Nidhi) to a widow late freedom fighter Ramakant Tripathi, who was jailed for 25 days during the Maihar Praja Mandal Movement of 1945-46, holding that a belated claim cannot be defeated merely on the ground of delay and that the State's approach to such claims must be practical, not hypertechnical.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's Division Bench order which had interfered with the Single Bench decision holding that the claim made after 25 years was barred by delay, laches, and estoppel.

The Court has now restored the Single Judge's order to grant the pension from April 6, 1991, along with 6% interest.

The Court held that Samman Nidhi is a mark of honour and an obligation of gratitude rooted in the Constitution, not a bounty or dole; that the standard of proof in such claims is based on probabilities, not criminal trial standards; that the burden of searching jail registers and official records lies on the State, which holds them; and that a delayed, indifferent, or hypertechnical process diminishes the honour the Scheme confers, even where the pension is eventually paid.

“the standard of proof in a claim seeking freedom fighter's pension is not that of a criminal trial and the claim has to be adjudicated on the basis of probabilities and a claimant cannot be expected to produce documents of events half a century old…Because the pension acknowledges a debt owed by the nation, the claimant comes before the authority as one to whom something is owed, not as a supplicant seeking a favour. The approach of the authorities must therefore be practical, having regard to the fact that most of the applications are by old persons with no proper records. And because the State, not the claimant, holds the jail registers, police files and gazettes of the period, the burden of searching them falls on the State.”, the Court said.

The appellant's case was that her late husband participated in the Maihar State Praja Mandal Movement of 1945-46 and was lodged in Maihar Jail for 25 days.

The claim of the deceased for grant of Samman Nidhi under the Madhya Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Sammannidhi Rules, 1972 (“Rules”) was rejected by a non-speaking order dated 06.04.1991 by the State Government. Later, after the death of her husband in 2016, the Appellant approached the District Collector, whose decision to deny her pension was upheld by the State government, following which a writ petition was filed before the High Court.

The Single Judge decided in favour of the Appellant, directing the State to release the pension to the Appellant, as a mark of honour. However, the Division Bench held otherwise, prompting her to move to the Supreme Court.

Allowing her appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the Division Bench of the High Court overlooked the material evidence on record which established that the Appellant was eligible to receive the pension. Further, her claim was fortified by the District Freedom Fighters List maintained by the Collector. The said record showed that deceased actively participated in “Maihar State Prajamandal Movement 1945-46” and was lodged in jail in the year 1946.

“The manner in which a claim is received, examined and decided is itself part of the recognition the Scheme confers. A delayed, indifferent, or hyper technical process diminishes the honour, even where the pension is eventually paid.”, the Court observed, criticising the approach adopted in the present case by the State and High Court.

“The aforesaid material evidence on record has been overlooked by the Division Bench. The plea of delay and laches on which the claim of the appellant has been negatived is equally untenable. The appellant is entitled under the Rules for grant of Samman Nidhi and the material on record indicates so. We are therefore unable to sustain the order passed by the Division Bench.”, the Court held.

The appeal was allowed.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR Mr. Ibad Mushtaq, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Rai, Adv. Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Abdul Wahid, Adv. Ms. Dikshita, Adv. Ms. Alvina Ali, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah- 2308, AOR Mr. Rudraditya Khare, Adv. Mrs. Surjeet Singh, Adv.