TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme: Applications Accepted Anytime, Eligibility Based on Original Submission Date.</h1> <h3>Mukund Lal Bhandari and Ors. Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors</h3> Mukund Lal Bhandari and Ors. Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors - TMI Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme.2. Requirement of documentary proof for pension claims.3. Timeliness of applications for pension.4. Retrospective effect of pension benefits.Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for Pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme:The petitioners, comprising some freedom fighters and dependents of others, sought pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972. The Scheme, introduced by the Government of India on the 25th Anniversary of Independence, provided pensions to freedom fighters and their families. Initially, the pension was restricted to those with an annual income not exceeding Rs. 5000. However, from 1st August 1980, the Scheme was extended to all freedom fighters irrespective of income, and the pension amount was increased. The eligibility criteria included a minimum imprisonment of six months, with certain relaxations for women and Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe members.2. Requirement of Documentary Proof for Pension Claims:The Scheme specified the documents required to support pension claims. The Court acknowledged that it was not its function to scrutinize these documents and directed the Government to do so. The Court emphasized that the Government should verify the authenticity of the documents and ascertain the eligibility of the claimants.3. Timeliness of Applications for Pension:The Government argued that the petitioners had filed their applications after the prescribed date. The Court rejected this contention, noting the practical difficulties faced by freedom fighters and their families in remote areas. The Court highlighted the genuine intent of the Scheme to honor and assist freedom fighters, stating that the prescribed date should be viewed as an administrative convenience rather than a rigid deadline. The Court directed that applications should be accepted irrespective of the date of submission.4. Retrospective Effect of Pension Benefits:The Government contended that pension should be granted only from the date the required proof was submitted. The Court partially accepted this argument, acknowledging the difficulties in obtaining old documents. The Court ruled that the date of application, even if unaccompanied by proof, should be considered the date of claim. However, the Court decided that pension benefits should not be granted retrospectively from an earlier date but only from the date of application. The Court reasoned that the Scheme aimed to honor and assist freedom fighters, not to compensate them retrospectively.Conclusion:The Court directed the Government to:- Accept applications irrespective of the submission date.- Scrutinize and dispose of applications within three months.- Pay pension from the date of the original application, subject to the submission of requisite proof.The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
