Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BYTHE SECRETARY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
K.V. SWAMINATHAN
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the Madras High Court made on 14.3.1995 in W.P. No.
15732/94. The respondent claimed the benefit as freedom-
fighter but the same remained pending for a long time.
Ultimately, giving the benefit of doubt to the respondent,
he was granted pension on 18.11.1989. Not feeling satisfied
with the relief, the respondent filed writ petition claiming
the pension from date of his-application. In the impugned
order, the High Court has directed to pay the pension from
the date of the application. The controversy is no longer
res integra. This Court had considered the entire
controversy in Union of India vs. M.R. Chelliah Thevar
[C.A. No. 7762/96) decided on April 30, 1996 and held thus :
"Heard counsel for both sides. On
behalf of the Union of India strong
reliance was placed on the decision
of the Division Bench of this Court
dated 24th April, 1995. On the
other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent placed reliance on an
earlier judgment of this Court in
Mukund Lal Bhandari & Ors. vs.
Union of India & Ors. 1993 Supp.
(3) 2, as well as the decision in
Amarnath dated 19th October, 1994.
The distinction, however, is that
in the case relied on by the Union
of India, the respondents were
granted the benefit under the
policy not because it was a clear
case of the respondents being
doubt was given and hence the
pension was restricted from the
date of application. In the two
cases relied on by the respondents,
there was no question of the
benefit having been founded on a
establish that the petitioners were
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
freedom fighters but on the liberal
ground of giving them the benefit
of the order. We are, therefore, of
the opinion that there is a
distinction between the decision
relied on by the learned Additional
Solicitor general on decisions
relied on by the respondent. In the
instant case, since the benefit of
doubt was given and the status of
freedom fighter was recognised on
that basis, the case would be
covered by the first mentioned
decision dated 24th April, 1995
(Union of India vs. Ganesh Chandra
Dolai & Ors.)"
In view of the above settled legal position, though the
respondent was not entitled to the pension as a freedom-
fighter, he was given the relief on the basis of benefit of
doubt. Therefore, he is entitled to the pension only from
the date of the order and not from the date of the
application. We are informed that pursuant to the order of
the High Court, the amount has been released. Under this
circumstance, the appellant is directed to deduct the paid
amount proportionately from the amount payable in every
month, instead of asking him to refund the amount.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. NO costs.