Mridula Devi vs Uoi And Others

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment Reserved on: 24.04.2026
% Judgment Delivered on: 04.06.2026

+ LPA 143/2025

MRIDULA DEVI .....Appellant

versus

UOI AND OTHERS .....Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case

For the Appellant : Mr. I. C. Mishra and Dr. Balmiki
Prasad, Advocates.

For the Respondents : Ms. Nidhi Banga, Senior Panel
Counsel with Mr. Sandeep
Choudhary, Advocate for R-1 to
3/UOI .
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
INTRODUCTION
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed assailing the judgment and order
dated 06.08.2024 (“ Impugned Judgment ”) passed in Writ Petition being
W.P.(C) 15038/2021 titled as ‘ Smt. Mridula Devi v. Union of India & Ors. ’
(“ Writ Petition ”) partly allowing the Writ Petition and order dated
22.11.2024 (“ Modification Order ”) rejecting the claim for modification of

LPA 143/2025 Page 1 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
14:35:07

the Impugned Judgment passed in an Application being C.M. No.
67811/2024 (“ Modification Application ”).
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The Appellant is the widow of Late Rama Nand Singh (“ R. N.
Singh ”), who participated in the Quit India Movement of 1942. On
10.08.1942, a criminal case, being G.R. 572/1942 titled as Emperor v.
Sheetal Prasad Singh & Ors. (“ G.R. 572/1942 ”), was registered against R.
N. Singh and his associates under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Madhubani, Bihar (“ SDM ”).
3. After several unsuccessful attempts by the SDM to arrest R. N. Singh
during the period from 1942 to 1944, the SDM, vide order dated 12.03.1945,
issued a proclamation and attachment under Section 82 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898 (“ CrPC ”) against him. Thereafter, vide order
dated 28.05.1945, the SDM declared R. N. Singh and his associates to be
proclaimed offenders under Section 83 of the CrPC. Consequently, R. N.
Singh and his associates remained underground / in hiding until December
1946.
4. Subsequently, on 25.12.1981, R. N. Singh applied for pension under
the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (“ Scheme ”),
formerly known as the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972, before
Respondent No. 3, namely the Under Secretary, Freedom Fighter Division,
Ministry of Home Affairs.
5. Respondent No. 4, State of Bihar, had recommended the case of R. N.
Singh for grant of pension under the Scheme from Central Revenues, vide
Letter dated 16.03.1985 addressed to the Central Government, i.e.,

LPA 143/2025 Page 2 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
14:35:07

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. However, Respondent No. 3 rejected the application
of R. N. Singh for pension under the Scheme through letter dated
27.01.2010 (“ Rejection Letter ”).
6. Aggrieved by the Rejection Letter, R. N. Singh filed a writ petition,
being W.P.(C) 549/2010 (“ W.P. 549/2010 ”), before this Court. During the
pendency of W.P. 549/2010, R. N. Singh passed away on 30.01.2011,
whereupon his legal representative, namely his wife Mrs. Mridula Devi, who
is the Appellant in the present Appeal, was brought on record.
7. Vide order dated 22.08.2013 (“ 2013 Order ”), the learned Single
Judge dismissed W.P. 549/2010, recording that the record of the Court in
G.R. 572/1942 had not been verified by the State Government and that the
Personal Knowledge Certificates issued by veteran freedom fighters, Mr.
Sheetal Prasad Singh and Mr. Yamuna Singh, had been rejected on the
ground that no record had been filed to establish that either of them had
undergone imprisonment for a minimum period of two years.
8. The Appellant challenged the 2013 Order by way of Letters Patent
Appeal, being LPA 48/2015, titled as Mridula Devi v. Union of India and
Ors. , before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench, vide
order dated 30.01.2015 (“ 2015 Order ”), directed that the Central
Government shall, within six weeks from 30.01.2015, make a reference to
the State of Bihar stating that Annexure P-2 (the certified copy issued by the
District Record Keeper in relation to G.R. 572/1942) filed with W.P.
549/2010 would be forwarded to State of Bihar for verification; the State of
Bihar was further directed to undertake the necessary verification and
submit its response to the Central Government within two months from

LPA 143/2025 Page 3 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
14:35:07

receipt of the communication. It was further directed that, if R. N. Singh
were found eligible under the Scheme, pension shall be granted from the
date of application, the entire arrears shall be paid to the Appellant, and her
claim for pension would also be considered. The relevant extract of the 2015
Order is as follows:
“ 5. We dispose of the appeal issuing a direction to the Union of
India to make a reference to the State of Bihar with respect to
Annexure P-2 filed along with the writ petition; certified copy
thereof being with the appellant. The reference would be made to the
State of Bihar. The query would be: are the contents thereof
authentic. Based thereon necessary decision would be taken afresh
by the Central Government.
6. If the Central Government wants the original of Annexure P-
2 to be submitted to it, a communication shall be sent to the
appellant to do needful.
7. The Central Government shall make a reference to the State
of Bihar within six weeks from today and while making the reference
annexure P-2 filed with the writ petition would be sent to the State
of Bihar for verification and authentication.
8. The State of Bihar shall do the necessary verification and
submit a response to the Central Government within two months of
receipt of communication from the Central Government. Within two
months thereafter the Central Government would take the necessary
decision.
9. If the late husband of the petitioner is found entitled to the
freedom fighter pension, same shall be disbursed to the appellant
from the date her husband made the application. Her entitlement to
receive the benefit as the widow of late Sh. Ramanand Singh would
be considered in said eventuality and amount payable shall also be
paid to the appellant. ”

9. The Appellant, through counsel, issued a legal notice dated
08.08.2019 (“ Legal Notice ”) seeking compliance with the 2015 Order.
Respondent No. 3, vide letter dated 24.10.2019, replied to the Legal Notice
stating that the requisite report had been received from the State
Government within the stipulated time and that Respondent No. 3 would

LPA 143/2025 Page 4 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
14:35:07

once again pursue the matter with the State Government. Thereafter, the
Central Government, vide letter dated 18.03.2020, stated that it had not
received the verification report from State of Bihar.
10. On 21.12.2021, the Appellant filed the Writ Petition seeking
compliance with the 2015 Order. During the pendency of the Writ Petition,
Respondent No. 3 re-examined the Appellant’s claim on the basis of the
available documents and rejected the same vide order dated 04.11.2022
(“ 2022 Order ”).
11. Vide the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge directed that
the 2022 Order be set aside and further directed Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to
release the pension of R. N. Singh to the Appellant, calculated for the period
from 25.12.1981 to 30.01.2011, within four weeks from 06.08.2024,
together with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum calculated from
25.12.1981 until the date of payment of the pension amount.
12. On 12.11.2024, the Appellant moved the Modification Application
seeking grant of family pension in her favour with effect from 31.01.2011,
as also correction of a typographical error. Vide the Modification Order, the
learned Single Judge corrected the typographical error but observed that the
prayer for grant of family pension to the Appellant from 31.01.2011 was in
the nature of a review rather than a modification, and accordingly dismissed
the Modification Application. The relevant extract of the Modification Order
is as under:
“ 1. Through this application, Petitioner pointed out that a
typographical error in paragraph no. 3 of judgment dated 06th
August, 2024 wherein the writ petition, W.P.(C) 549/2010, has been
inadvertently mentioned as W.P.(C) 49/2010. Accordingly, it is
directed that the writ petition in paragraph no. 3 shall be read as

LPA 143/2025 Page 5 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
14:35:07

W.P.(C) 549/2010.
2. All the other grounds urged by Petitioner, which have been
styled as seeking modification/ correction of the judgment, are in the
nature of seeking a review.
3. This Court finds no error apparent on the face of the record.
If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the findings of this Court, the
remedy lies in assailing the order and not by seeking a modification.
4. With the above direction, the application is dismissed. ”

13. Aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment and the Modification Order,
the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
14. Mr. I. C. Mishra, the learned Counsel for the Appellant made the
following submissions:
14.1. R. N. Singh, the husband of the Appellant, was found to be an
eligible freedom fighter and vide the Impugned Judgment, was
granted pension under the Scheme with effect from 25.12.1981
until the date of his demise, i.e., 30.01.2011, together with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The said amount has since
been received by the Appellant from Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
However, the allowances payable by Respondent No. 4 to the
Appellant remain outstanding.
14.2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Modification
Application without duly examining the factual matrix and
without proper consideration of the documents placed on record
in support thereof.
14.3. The learned Single Judge, in the Impugned Judgment, referred
to the revised policy guidelines governing the Scheme and
extracted the relevant provisions. However, it is contended that

LPA 143/2025 Page 6 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
14:35:07

the revised policy guidelines dated 06.08.2014 (“ Guidelines ”)
filed by Respondent No. 4 had been prepared by Respondent
No. 3 but had neither been approved by the Union Cabinet nor
notified by the Government of India. Therefore, the Guidelines
do not possess binding legal force insofar as the Appellant is
concerned, and that the Scheme continues to remain in
operation and has not been de-notified.
14.4. Vide order dated 14.12.2022, the learned Single Judge imposed
costs of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) upon
Respondent No. 4 for failure to file the verification report in
relation to G.R. 572/1942, which amount has not been paid to
date.
14.5. The Circular dated 24.11.2005 (“ Circular ”) issued by the
Ministry of Home Affairs sets out the categories of dependents
eligible under the Scheme. In cases where the freedom fighter is
no longer alive, the eligible dependents for grant of family
pension are stated to include the widow or widower, provided
he or she has not remarried; unmarried and unemployed
daughters, subject to a maximum of three at a time; and the
mother and father.
14.6. In Smt. Savitri Devi v. Union of India and Ors. , Neutral
Citation: 2023:DHC:000807, this Court held that family
pension in favour of the widow of a freedom fighter is liable to
be granted under the Scheme together with arrears and
applicable allowances, where warranted.

LPA 143/2025 Page 7 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
14:35:07

14.7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the
present Appeal be allowed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3
15. Ms. Nidhi Banga, learned Senior Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos.
1 to 3 made the following submissions:
15.1. The present Appeal raises a limited question concerning the
scope of derivative entitlement under the Scheme. The issue
that falls for consideration before this Court is whether a
dependent may claim family pension in a case where the
freedom fighter was not a recognised pensioner during his
lifetime and the claim is predicated upon a posthumous grant.
15.2. The Scheme is an honorary, recognition-based measure
intended solely to acknowledge the sacrifices made by freedom
fighters. It is neither a statutory pension governed by the
principles of service jurisprudence, nor does it possess the
attributes of an enforceable service entitlement.

15.3. The Scheme operates strictly within the confines of the
eligibility criteria and verification process prescribed
thereunder, and any claim thereto must arise and be adjudicated
exclusively in accordance with the Scheme and the guidelines
governing it.
15.4. The Scheme expressly distinguishes between the pension
payable to a freedom fighter and the family pension payable to
his or her dependents. Family pension is not an independent
right; rather, it is derivative in nature and accrues only where

LPA 143/2025 Page 8 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
14:35:07

the freedom fighter was a validly recognised pensioner during
his or her lifetime. The Scheme, therefore, contemplates the
continuation of an existing entitlement and not the origination
of a new one after the death of the freedom fighter.
15.5. The Union of India issued the Guidelines to regulate the grant
of pension under the Scheme and to prevent misuse in its
disbursement. The Guidelines specifically provide that “ no
pension shall be sanctioned in the name of a freedom fighter
after his/her death ” and that dependent family pension arises
only where the freedom fighter was a recognised pensioner
during his or her lifetime.
15.6. The Guidelines, thus, prohibit the belated origination of pension
and restrict derivative claims in the absence of a valid pension
during the lifetime of the freedom fighter.
15.7. In the present case, even assuming that the claim of the freedom
fighter came to be decided in his favour, it never crystallised
into a valid and recognised pension during his lifetime. Any
recognition of the claim, therefore, operated only up to the date
of his demise and not beyond. Since the foundational
requirement, namely that the freedom fighter must have been a
recognised pensioner during his lifetime, remains unsatisfied,
the very basis for a derivative claim is absent. Consequently, no
family pension or derivative entitlement can lawfully accrue in
favour of the dependent.


LPA 143/2025 Page 9 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
14:35:07

15.8. It is a settled principle of law that, even where a benefit has
been granted in a particular case, the same cannot be extended
if it is contrary to the governing scheme. In State of Orissa v.
Mamata Mohanty , (2011) 3 SCC 436, the Supreme Court held
that illegality or irregularity cannot be perpetuated. The Scheme
mandates the existence of a recognised pensioner during his or
her lifetime, and in the absence thereof, no derivative right can
accrue.
15.9. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 relied upon the following judgments in
support of the above submissions:
i. The Guidelines are valid executive instructions as
recognized in Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab ,
AIR 1955 SC 549, and do not require legislative
enactment.
ii. In BALCO Employees’ Union v. Union of India , (2002)
2 SCC 333, the Court held that the policy decisions of the
Government are subject to limited judicial review.
iii. In Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India , (1993)
Supp (3) SCC 2, the Court held that though the Scheme is
beneficial, eligibility conditions must be satisfied.
iv. In Gurdial Singh v. Union of India , (2001) 8 SCC 8, the
Court held that liberal interpretation cannot override
basic eligibility requirements.
15.10. Accordingly, it was prayed that the present Appeal be
dismissed.

LPA 143/2025 Page 10 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
14:35:07

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
16. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned Senior
Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and have perused the material
placed on record. The principal question that arises for consideration is
whether the Appellant, being the widow of R. N. Singh, is entitled to family
pension under the Scheme with effect from 31.01.2011, together with arrears
and interest.
17. It is not in dispute that R. N. Singh was found to be an eligible
freedom fighter under the Scheme. Such finding was returned in the
Impugned Judgment and has not been assailed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
The pension payable to R. N. Singh for the period from 25.12.1981 to
30.01.2011, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, has already
been disbursed to the Appellant. The sole surviving issue, therefore, is
whether the Appellant, as his widow, is entitled to family pension with
effect from 31.01.2011, together with arrears, interest, and future payments
in accordance with law.

18. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 rest their case entirely on the Guidelines,
which provide that no pension shall be sanctioned in the name of a freedom
fighter after his death and that no family pension shall consequently follow.
19. R. N. Singh applied for pension under the Scheme on 25.12.1981 and
passed away on 30.01.2011. Both events occurred several years before the
Guidelines were brought into existence. It is a settled principle that
executive instructions operate prospectively from the date on which they are
issued. They cannot be given retrospective effect to extinguish a right that
had already accrued prior to their issuance. The Guidelines are, in their true

LPA 143/2025 Page 11 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
14:35:07

character, instruments that regulate the procedure and modalities for
disbursement of pension under the Scheme. They do not purport to, nor can
they lawfully, extinguish a substantive right that came into existence
independently of them and prior to their making. To permit the Guidelines to
operate in that manner would be to give executive instructions a reach that
the law does not permit.
20. In any event, the Guidelines were never intended to divest benefits
already available under the Scheme. This Court has considered the purpose
of the Guidelines in Union of India v. Kolli Uday Kumari , Neutral Citation:
2023:DHC:408-DB, wherein it was held that the Guidelines were issued
only to clarify the Scheme and not to alter its substantive content. Although
that decision arose in a different factual setting, the principle enunciated
therein applies with equal force in the present case. If the Guidelines are
merely clarificatory, they cannot be construed so as to introduce a fresh
disqualification or curtail a benefit expressly available under the Scheme. To
read the Guidelines in the manner suggested by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
would, in effect, permit a clarification to override the very Scheme it was
intended to explain, which is plainly impermissible.
21. We are also unable to accept the submission that the right of R. N.
Singh never crystallised. The said contention conflates the existence of a
right with the formal act of its recognition. The Impugned Judgment records
a finding that R. N. Singh was an eligible freedom fighter and directs that
pension be paid to him with effect from 25.12.1981. At the cost of
repetition, we may observe that the Impugned Judgment has not been
challenged by the Respondents. Right of R.N. Singh, therefore, stood vested

LPA 143/2025 Page 12 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
14:35:07

from that 25.12.1981, which was during his lifetime. What remained
wanting was only the formal sanction. Such sanction was not issued owing
to the conduct of the Respondents themselves, including the repeated failure
of Respondent No. 4 to furnish the verification report, notwithstanding
repeated reminders and even an order imposing costs upon Respondent No.
4 by this Court vide order dated 14.12.2022.
22. It is a well-settled principle that a party cannot be deprived of a vested
right on account of delay occasioned by the very authority that opposed the
claim. To hold otherwise would amount to permitting the Respondents to
derive advantage from their own default.
23. The nature and object of the Scheme must also be kept in view. The
Scheme embodies the nation’s gratitude towards those who endured
suffering and made sacrifices in the cause of India’s freedom, and towards
their families. A beneficial measure of this character must receive an
interpretation that advances its object and effectuates its purpose. In the facts
of the present case, the sole reason for the absence of formal sanction in
favour of R. N. Singh was the delay attributable to the Respondents
themselves. To deny the Appellant her entitlement on that basis would be to
allow the Respondents to benefit from their own default and would render
the beneficent purpose of the Scheme nugatory.
24. The status of the Appellant as a dependent is not in doubt. The
Circular, as well as the Scheme itself, recognises the widow of a freedom
fighter as an eligible dependent for family pension after his death, provided
she has not remarried. The Appellant is the widow of R. N. Singh, and there
is nothing on record to indicate that she has remarried. She, therefore,

LPA 143/2025 Page 13 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
14:35:07

clearly falls within the class of persons eligible to receive family pension
under the Scheme.
25. The authorities cited on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 do not
advance their case. Ram Jawaya Kapur ( supra ) and BALCO Employees’
Union ( supra ) merely affirm the validity of executive instructions and the
limited scope of judicial review over policy decisions; neither decision
supports retrospective application of the Guidelines to defeat an accrued
claim. The decisions in Mukund Lal Bhandari ( supra ) and Gurdial Singh
( supra ) require satisfaction of basic eligibility conditions, which, in the
present case, stood fulfilled by R. N. Singh. Those decisions also affirm that
the Scheme ought to receive a liberal construction on the standard of
preponderance of probabilities. As regards Mamata Mohanty ( supra ), the
principle that illegality cannot be perpetuated has no application to the
present case. The grant of family pension to the Appellant is not contrary to
law. Rather, it is in consonance with the Scheme itself.
26. The decision in Smt. Savitri Devi ( supra ) holds that the widow of a
freedom fighter is entitled to family pension under the Scheme, together
with arrears and applicable allowances. The facts of the said decision are, in
material respects, analogous to those obtaining in the present case.
27. We may also note that the learned Single Judge dismissed the
Modification Application solely on the ground that the relief sought was in
the nature of a review rather than a modification. The issue of the
Appellant’s entitlement to family pension was, therefore, not adjudicated on
merits by the learned Single Judge.


LPA 143/2025 Page 14 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
14:35:07

28. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the Appellant, being
the widow of R. N. Singh, is entitled to family pension under the Scheme
with effect from 31.01.2011, together with arrears and interest, to continue
during her lifetime or until her remarriage, whichever occurs earlier. The
Modification Order, to the extent it declines the said relief, cannot be
sustained and is accordingly set aside.
29. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed, and Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are
directed to sanction and release family pension to the Appellant with effect
from 31.01.2011, together with all consequential arrears, and to continue
payment thereof during her lifetime or until her remarriage, whichever
occurs earlier. The arrears shall carry simple interest at the rate of 6% per
annum, computed from the date each instalment fell due until the date of
actual payment, consistent with the interest already awarded on the pension
payable to R. N. Singh. The payment of arrears will be made to the
Appellant within a period of eight weeks from the date of this Judgement
and payment of family pension shall commence forthwith.

30. Respondent No. 4 shall pay the costs of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand only) as directed by order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the learned
Single Judge in the Writ Petition. If the said amount of cost is not remitted
to the Appellant within eight weeks, Respondent No. 4 shall pay enhanced
costs of ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only).
31. The Appeal stands disposed of with the above directions.

TEJAS KARIA, J

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
JUNE 4, 2026/
‘N’

LPA 143/2025 Page 15 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.06.2026
14:35:07