Santosh Gulia vs Union Of India And Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7469/2022
Date of decision: 21.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
SANTOSH GULIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amolak, Mr. Gurmukh Dass
Kohli, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Chiranjiv Kumar and Mr.Mukesh
Sachdeva Advocates for R-UOI.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition is a modest but poignant reminder of an enduring
constitutional promise. That those who sacrificed their liberties for the
nation shall not be left without dignity in their twilight years, and neither
shall those who bore their burden alongside them. The question that arises
for consideration in the instant Writ Petition touches upon the laudable but
at times restrictively interpreted Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension
Scheme, 1980 ( “the Scheme”) , and whether the Petitioner, the widowed
daughter of a deceased freedom fighter stands excluded from its protective
embrace on account of her marital status alone.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026
12:51:03

2. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-
“(i) to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ of such
nature directing the respondents to include name of petitioner in the list
of pensioners being widow daughter of freedom fighter under
Swatantrata Senani Samman Scheme.

(ii) To pass any further other order(s), direction(s), instruction(s) as this
Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in the
interest of justice.”

3. The Scheme is not a traditional pension policy arising from any
contractual employment relationship with the State; rather, it constitutes
formal recognition by the State of the sacrifice and contribution of freedom
fighters, as well as their dependents who shared the hardships of that
struggle. Para 3 of the Scheme defines “ Eligible Dependants ” as:-
“For the purpose of grant of Samman Pension, family includes (if the
freedom fighter is not alive) mother, father, widower/widow if he/she has
not since remarried, unmarried daughters

No more than one eligible dependent can be granted pension and in the
event of availability of more than one dependent the sequence of
eligibility will be widow/widower, unmarried daughters, mother and
father.”

4. The Petitioner is the widowed daughter of Late Sh. Lal Chand, a
recognised freedom fighter who was in receipt of pension under the Scheme
vide PPO No. MHAFF9102678. The Petitioner’s husband predeceased her
on 21.02.1993, following which she resided with her parents. Upon the
demise of her father on 03.07.2004, the Petitioner’s mother continued to
receive the pension as the widow of the freedom fighter. The Petitioner’s
mother subsequently passed away on 18.02.2018, leaving the Petitioner as
the surviving widowed daughter.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026
12:51:03

5. The Petitioner stated that she remained unmarried after the death of
her husband and was dependent on her parents. The sole reason to deny the
benefit is that the Petitioner cannot be construed to be dependant of the
deceased. The Petitioner claims to have made several representations to the
Respondent authorities, supported by certificates issued by competent
authorities. Despite such representations, no decision has been taken.
Therefore, the Petitioner has filed the instant petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents draws the
attention of the Court to the Clause 5.2.5 of the notification bearing
No.45/03/2014 FF(P), Ministry of Home Affairs, FFR Division i.e. the
Guidelines for disbursement of Central Samman Pensions to be followed by
Authorized Public Sector Banks. The said Clause is extracted as under:-
“5.2.5 Widowed/ divorced daughter is not eligible for samman pension.”

7. This Court in the case of Smt. Kohli Indira Kumari vs. The Union of
1
India had an occasion to consider the import of para 5.2.5 of the revised
policy guidelines. While placing reliance on the decision of the Division
Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Khazani Devi vs.
2
Union of India and Ors. , this Court found that the benefit of pension to the
widow daughter in view of para 5.2.5 of the Scheme should not be denied.
Paragraph no.8 of the decision in the case of Smt. Kohli Indira Kumari is
extracted as under:-
“8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only issue
which arises for consideration is, whether in view of para 5.2.5 of the

1
W.P.(C) 7343/2020; Judgment dated 10.08.2021
2
LPA No.1721/2015 dated 29.07.2016
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026
12:51:03

Pension Scheme, the petitioner a widowed daughter of a freedom fighter
is not entitled to the benefit of the Pension Scheme as a dependent of the
freedom fighter. This Court is of the view, the issue is no more res-
integra in view of the conclusion of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in
the case of Khazani Devi (supra), wherein the petitioner who was a
divorcee and had also sought grant of the pension under the Pension
Scheme through her late father and the same was denied to her as she
was ineligible for grant of the same under the said Scheme. The Division
Bench was of the view that the underlying object in the clause of the
Scheme listing eligible dependents is that only one be granted the
pension. Therefore, the authorities have to construe the admissibility of
benefit from that angle. It is not the case, that the daughters are excluded
altogether. An unmarried daughter finds mention in the list of eligible
dependents. It would, thus, be a travesty to exclude a divorced daughter.
There would be no rationality to the reason that the unmarried daughter
can be included in the list of eligible dependents and a divorced daughter
would stand excluded, particularly when she is the sole eligible
dependent and thus, qualifies for the benefit, which is concededly made
admissible only to one dependent. The Division Bench was of the opinion
that a beneficial Scheme such as the one in hand should not be fettered
or constructed by a rigorous interpretation which tends to deprive the
claimants of the benefit to result in virtual frustration or negation of the
laudable motive of the Scheme itself. The Division Bench also noticed
that the Ministry of Defence has issued instructions dated December 14,
2012 which included a divorced daughter in the category of eligible
dependents for grant of liberalized/special family pension beyond 25
years. The same was extracted as under:-

“2. The above matter is considered by the Government and it
has been decided in consultation with Department of P&PW
that unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter shall also be
eligible for grant of liberalised/special family pension beyond
25 years of age subject to fulfilment of other prescribed
conditions as hitherto fore.”

The Division Bench was of the view that both the liberalized/special
family pension and Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme are
intended to honour the valour of the uniformed people who laid down
their lives or suffered for the cause of the country and thus, would not
place any demeaning interpretation on the Scheme to deprive the unsung
heroes of the country of benefits meant to ensure a life of dignity to their
dependents. The Division Bench accepted the appeal and directed that
the benefit of Swatantarta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme shall be
admissible to the divorced daughter as well.”

Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026
12:51:03

8. Ultimately, the Court in paragraph no.12 thereof, has passed the
following directions:-
“12. I concur with the view taken by Punjab & Haryana High Court as
well as Calcutta High Court, more particularly when the very same
clause under which the benefit is sought to be denied by the respondents
to the petitioner, was considered for granting the relief to widowed
daughters. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated February 12, 2020 is set aside. The respondents
shall consider the case of the petitioner for grant of dependent pension
under the Pension Scheme to the petitioner, if she satisfies the other
conditions as contemplated under the Scheme. This consideration shall
be undertaken within eight weeks from today.”


3
9. In Sonali Hatua Giri vs. Union of India and Ors. Clause 5.2.5 of the
2014 Guidelines was declared to be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution, stating that:-
“ 36. Since the aforesaid safeguard is already existing, the blanket
exclusion of widowed/divorced daughters, including even those who do
not have any personal income in lieu of maintenance or otherwise, is
patently dehors Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which enshrines
the guarantee of equality to all citizens. In the present case, the
classification is worse than gender bias, since unmarried daughters have
been included within the scheme but widowed/divorced daughters who
stand on the same footing, having no independent source of income, have
been excluded”

10. In view of the aforesaid, the legal position on the issue involved in the
instant petition is no longer res-integra , and accordingly, the Respondents
are hereby directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for grant of
dependant pension under the Scheme, if she satisfies the other conditions as
contemplated under the Scheme, including the condition of having no
independent source of income. This consideration shall be undertaken and

3
2021 SCC ONLINE CAL 1644.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026
12:51:03

completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of the order passed today.
11. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed
of.


(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
APRIL 21, 2026
Nc/ NK




Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:05.05.2026
12:51:03