TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (9) TMI 1189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....referred to as "the Scheme"). After he succeeded, with the assistance of judicial process, in obtaining an order for the grant of pension at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month with effect from 29th April, 1998 (Annexure P-1), he was deprived of the same allegedly for his fault of again approaching the court for the grant of aforesaid pension with effect from the date of his application in terms of the mandate of this Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. 1993 Suppl. (3) SCC 2. The respondent-Union of India not only cancelled the pension sanctioned in favour of the appellant but also directed the recovery of the amounts paid to him in pursuance to the earlier orders passed in his favour. His petition for redres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nformation, his case was rejected by the Director, Ministry of Home Affairs on 7.4.1995 (Vide Annexure P-7). As despite service of notice he was not granted the relief, the appellant was forced to file a writ Petition No. 12350 of 1996 in the High Court which was disposed of by setting aside the impugned order (annexure P-7) with a direction to the respondents to re-decide his case in the light of the documents produced in the High Court. Thereafter he appeared before the concerned authorities. The Government of Punjab vide its order dated 29th April, 1998 accorded the grant of provisional 'Swatantrata Samman Pension' to the appellant at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month w.e.f. 25.4.1998 (Annexure P-9). It was mentioned in the aforesa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r affidavit stating therein that as discrepancies and contradictions were found in the claim of the appellant, the order granting him pension was cancelled. The respondents further submitted that pension had earlier been wrongly granted to the appellant. The discrepancies and contradictions noticed by the authorities have been detailed as hereunder: "(a) He indicated in his application that he joined Indian National Army in Sept 1942. It is a historical fact that Indian National Army headed by Netaji came into existence only in Jul/August in 1943, when civilians were also admitted to it. (b) Regarding his claim of being the personal driver of Netaji he subsequently clarified that he is an illiterate person and the typist had includ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the country most of citizens who suffered imprisonment were handicapped to get the relevant record from the jails where they had suffered imprisonment. The problem of getting the record from the foreign country is very cumbersome and expensive. Keeping in mind the object of the scheme, the concerned authorities are required that in appreciating the scheme for the benefit of freedom fighters a rationale and not a technical approach is required to be adopted. It has also to be kept in mind that the claimants of the scheme are supposed to be such persons who had given the best part of their life for the country. This Court in Mukand Lal Bhandari's case (supra) observed: "The object in making the said relaxation was not to rewa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een made available to them for quite sometime now." 7. The court categorically mentioned that the pension under the scheme should be made payable from the date on which the application is made whether it is accompanied by necessary proof of eligibility or not. 8. 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 forgott....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose mind completely ignoring the verdict of this Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari's case. We further feel that after granting the pension of the appellant, the respondents were not justified to reject his claim on the basis of material which already existed, justifying the grant of pension in his favour. The appellant has, unnecessarily, been dragged to litigation for no fault of his. This High Court has completely ignored its earlier judgments in CWP No. 3790 of 1994 entitled Mohan Singh vs. Union of India decided on 1.6.1995 and CWP 14442 of 1995 decided on 11.12.1995. 10. We are satisfied that the order of the respondent Authorities impugned before the High Court (Annexure P-14) dated 1.11.2000 is liable to be set aside and the appella....