Heirs Cannot Seek Substitution to Claim Freedom Fighter's Pension After Death of Primary Applicant

The deceased writ petitioner, Bisnupada Jana, filed a writ petition on November 19, 2025, seeking Freedom Fighter's Pension based on an original application dated August 13, 1981

This 1981 application had been rejected by the Government of India on July 24, 1986, on the grounds of insufficient documentary evidence

The petitioner died on December 20, 2025, during the pendency of the writ

His legal heirs (the applicants) filed a substitution application (CAN No. 1 of 2025) to continue the proceedings.

The Union of India opposed the substitution, citing a 44-year delay in filing the writ, the finality of the 1986 rejection, and specific scheme guidelines prohibiting the sanction of pension after a freedom fighter's death

1. Whether the legal heirs of a deceased freedom fighter can be substituted to continue a writ proceeding for pension when the original claim was rejected during the lifetime of the freedom fighter and not challenged for several decades

2. Whether Clause 1.5 of the Guidelines for disbursement of Central Samman Pensions bars the sanction of pension or arrears to dependents after the death of the freedom fighter

The Court applied Clause 1.5 of the Guidelines for Disbursement of Central Samman Pensions, which mandates that no pension or lifetime arrears shall be sanctioned after the death of a freedom fighter, even if the matter was under examination

It relied on Union of India v. A. Alagam Perumal Kone (2021) 4 SCC 535, establishing that once a rejection order becomes final, a claimant cannot re-agitate the matter through fresh applications

Furthermore, it applied the principle from Union of India v. Krishna Modi (2022) 5 SCC 731 regarding strict eligibility criteria for "underground" status

distinguished Shiv Dass v. Union of India (2007) 9 SCC 274, noting that while pension is a continuing cause of action, excessive delay and the finality of prior rejection remain valid grounds for dismissal

The Court reasoned that the substitution application was unsustainable for three primary reasons. First, the applicants failed to establish the legal relationship of one of the applicants, Sukumar Jana, with the deceased

Second, under Clause 1.5 of the Pension Scheme, the right to claim pension or arrears effectively extinguished upon the death of the freedom fighter, especially since no pension had been sanctioned during his lifetime

Third, and most critically, the writ petitioner had allowed the 1986 rejection order to attain finality by failing to challenge it for nearly 40 years

The Court determined that the petition filed in 2025 was an attempt to revive a dead claim, and since the original petitioner had no subsisting legal right at the time of his death due to the unchallenged 1986 order, no right to sue survived for the legal heirs

Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for substitution (CAN No. 1 of 2025) and subsequently dismissed the main writ petition (WPA No. 26545 of 2025)