GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. versus SITAKANT S. DUBHASHI & ANR.

[2020] 3 S.C.R. 736

[2020] 3 S.C.R.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.

SITAKANT S. DUBHASHI & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 987 of 2020)

BFEBRUARY 11, 2020

[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]

Freedom Fighter – Pension – Swatantrata Sainik SammanPension Scheme, 1980 – Goa Freedom Fighter’s Welfare Rules, 1988– After liberation of Goa in 1961, the State framed the Goa FreedomCfighter’s Welfare Rules, 1988 – After several deliberations, list of22 persons was approved on 26.12.2007 for the State pension inwhich respondent no. 1 was also included – The Swatantrata SainikSamman Pension Scheme, 1980 was extended by relaxing theconditions contained therein to the participants of Goa LiberationDMovement, Phase-II by the Government order dated 17.02.2003 –The scheme dated 17.2.2003 clearly provided that the CentralPension is to be granted to the participants of the second phase ofGoa Liberation Movement who have been granted freedom fighterpension by the State Government by 01.08.2002 – After receipt ofState Pension, the respondent no. 1 sent representation datedE06.08.2009 to the Government of India for grant of SSSP schemefrom the Government of India – The Government of India foundrespondent no. 1 ineligible for grant of SSSP scheme under therelaxed criteria for Goa Liberation Movement, Phase-II – Writpetition by respondent no. 1 – The High Court allowed the writFpetition and directed the appellant to grant the pension under SSSPscheme to the respondent no. 1 w.e.f. 11.03.2008 – Before theSupreme Court, the respondent no. 1 contended that the object ofSSSP scheme was to grant Central pension to all those who are inreceipt of the State pension and the scheme dated 17.02.2003 lackedintelligible differentia and also nexus with the object – Held: TheGobject of the SSSP scheme was to grant the Freedom Fighters CentralPension to those who fulfil the eligibilities as per the Scheme –From the material available on record, it does appear that theGovernment of India deliberated on the issue of cut-off date to01.08.2002 and the said cut-off date was consciously fixed forH

extending the benefit of SSSP scheme to participants of GoaLiberation Movement, Phase-II – The scheme was not an open-endedscheme and relaxation was granted to particular category ofpersons, who were in receipt of the State pension by 01.08.2002 –The relaxation granted by order dated 17.02.2003 cannot be saidto be the object of the Central Government – The object underSSSP was always and still is to grant freedom fighters pension tothose who fulfil the eligibility of SSSP scheme – The submission ofrespondent that object of SSSP was to grant Central Pension to allthose in receipt of the State pension cannot be accepted – By relaxing,the SSSP scheme for limited category, the object of the main schemeshall not be lost nor those who are not covered by relaxed conditionscan claim right to grant of SSSP Scheme, 1980 – Thus, the schemedated 17.02.2003 has intelligible differentia and also nexus withthe object – There was no error in rejecting the claim of respondentno. 1 for grant of SSSP Scheme, 1980.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. From the material which has been brought onrecord, it does appear that Government of India deliberated onthe issue of cut-off date to 01.08.2002 and the said cut-off datewas consciously fixed for extending the benefit of SwatantrataSainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 to participants of GoaLiberation Movement, Phase-II. The eligibility under the SSSPScheme, 1980, is entirely different from the eligibility of the Statepension under the Goa Freedom Fighter’s Welfare Rules, 1988.Goa was liberated in 1961. The State has framed the rules initiallyin 1973 and thereafter in 1988. Freedom Fighters were sanctionedpensions in aforesaid Goa Rules at least after 1973. The questionof extension of SSSP scheme to the participants of Goa Liberation,Phase-II was being considered by the Central Government fromthe year 2000 and ultimately, it was extended by Scheme dated17.02.2003. [Para 23][752-B-E]

2. The SSSP Scheme, 1980 provided for eligibilities forFreedom Fighters to make an application under the SSSP Scheme,1980. Freedom Fighters of the Goa were also included and thosewho fulfil the conditions therein were entitled to grant of thepension. In the present case, this Court is concerned with theSSSP Scheme, 1980. The object of the Scheme was to sanction

Apension under the Scheme, 1980, who fulfil the eligibilities asper the Scheme. The State pension for which Scheme and Ruleshave been formulated by different States including the State ofGoa were on different eligibilities and the mere fact that personis eligible or entitled to State pension does not ipso facto makeshim eligible for the SSSP Scheme, 1980. The object of the SSSPBScheme, 1980 was to grant the Freedom Fighters Central Pensionto those, who fulfil the eligibility which object was clearly fulfilledin including the Goa Liberation Movement also under theScheme. As noted above, representations were received fromvarious quarters to extend the SSSP Scheme, 1980 to participantsCof Goa Liberation Movement particularly, those, who participatedin the Second Phase of the Movement (1954-55). The CentralGovernment decided to relax the conditions of eligibility underSSSP Scheme, 1980 by Scheme dated 17.02.2003 and whilerelaxing the Scheme cut-off date 01.08.2002 was fixed for makingeligible the participants of Goa Liberation Movement. This CourtDhas already noticed the rationale for fixing the cut-off date, whichwas fixed after due deliberation and consideration of relevantfacts. [Para 25][753 A-F]

3. The submission of respondent No.1 is that there was nonexus with the object sought to be achieved by fixing the cut-offEdate 01.08.2002. As noticed, the object of SSSP Scheme, 1980was to grant Central Pension to those who were eligible underthe said Scheme. The Freedom Fighters of the Goa LiberationMovement were already included in the Scheme, 1980, who wereeligible as per the said Scheme. Thus, with regard to FreedomFFighters of Goa Liberation Movement, the Scheme, 1980 coveredthem and the object was to grant only those Freedom Fighters ofGoa Liberation Movement, who fulfilled the eligibility of SSSPScheme, 1980. When Scheme was relaxed and extended toparticipants of the Goa Liberation Movement Second Phase,

relaxation was granted in the eligibility as provided in the SSSPGScheme, 1980 with the condition that those who are in receipt ofState pension by 01.08.2002 should be extended the benefit ofrelaxation. The Scheme was not an open-ended Scheme andrelaxation was granted to particular category of persons, whowere in receipt of the State pension by 01.08.2002. The relaxationHgranted by order dated 17.02.2003 cannot be said to be the object

of the Central Government. The object under SSSP Scheme, 1980was always and still is to grant Freedom Fighters pension to thosewho fulfil the eligibility of SSSP Scheme, 1980. The submission ofthe respondent No.1 that object of SSSP Scheme, 1980 was togrant central pension to all those, who are in receipt of the Statepension cannot be accepted. By relaxing, the SSSP Scheme, 1980for limited category, the object of the main Scheme shall not belost nor those who are not covered by relaxed conditions canclaim right to grant of SSSP Scheme, 1980. Thus, this Court is ofthe view that the Scheme dated 17.02.2003 has intelligibledifferentia and also nexus with the object. When relaxation isgranted to limited category, the others, who are not covered bythe Scheme cannot claim any violation of the right of equality.Right of equality can be claimed only by those who fulfil theeligibilities under the SSSP Scheme, 1980. [Para 26][753 F-H;754 A-E]

4. Thus, there was no error in rejecting the claim ofrespondent No.1 for grant of SSSP scheme as communicated bycommunication letters dated 16.11.2009 and 13.11.2014. TheGovernment Scheme dated 17.02.2003 also did not suffer fromany infirmity. [Para 32][756 D-E]

Mukund Lal Bhandari and Others v. Union of Indiaand Others (1993) Supp. 3 SCC 2 : [1993] 3 SCR 891

– distinguished.

Case Law Reference

[1993] 3 SCR 891distinguishedPara 29

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 987 of2020.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2017 of the High Courtof Bombay at Goa, Panaji in Writ Petition (C) No. 229 of 2016.

Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Sunita Sharma,Siddharth Sinha, Prashant Rawat, Om Prakash Shukla, Shubham Sharma,B. V. Balaram Das, Advs. for the Appellants.

Ms. Mugdha Pande, Pallav Mongia, Pratap Venugopal, Ms.Surekha Raman, Akhil Abraham Roy, P. S. Sudheer, Advs. for theRespondents.

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered byASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against judgment of High Court ofBombay at Goa at Panaji dated 20.03.2017 allowing the writ petitionfiled by respondent No.1. The writ petition was filed by respondent No.1Bchallenging the notification dated 17.02.2003 issued by Government ofIndia as well as orders dated 16.11.2009 and 13.11.2014 issued by theGovernment of India rejecting the claim of respondent No.1 for pensionunder Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.

2. Brief facts of this case for deciding this appeal are: -C

2.1.The Government of India has introduced Freedom FightersPension Scheme, 1972. With certain modifications, thescheme was renamed as Swatantrata Sainik SammanPension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “SSSPScheme, 1980”). For grant of pension under the SSSPDScheme, 1980, there were eligibility conditions. The freedomfighters having suffered minimum imprisonment of sixmonths were eligible for benefit of the Scheme. TheGovernment of India decided to extend the SSSP Schemeto the participants of Goa Liberation Movement who fulfilledEthe eligibility conditions under SSSP Scheme. Therespondent had made an application to the Government ofIndia for grant of SSSP Scheme on 19.03.1982. Therespondent No.1 was informed by the Government of Indiain the year 1985 that his case having not recommended bythe State he is not entitled for SSS Pension. The GovernmentFof India received representation from various quarters forgrant of pension to all the participants of Goa LiberationMovement particularly to those who participated in thesecond phase of the movement (1954-55). The Governmentof India decided to grant freedom fighter pension toGparticipants of Goa liberation Movement Phase-II(1954-55) under SSSP Scheme, 1980 by Government Orderdated 17.02.2003.

2.2.After liberation of Goa in 1961, the State of Goa has initiallyframed Goa, Daman & Diu freedom fighters welfare Rules,1973. In supersession of 1973 Rules, the State framed theH

Goa freedom fighter’s welfare rules, 1988. Freedom fighterswere defined in Rule 2.

2.3.The respondent had made an application for State pensionby application dated 28.07.2001. On the application of therespondent, the Government of Goa asked for reports fromInspector General of Police which was submitted by DeputyBInspector General of Police dated 09.05.2002 opining thatname of the respondent No.1 is not figuring in the freedomfighters register. The application of respondent No.1 wasconsidered by the Government and the application ofrespondent No.1 for grant of State Pension was rejectedCon 18.12.2002.

2.4The respondent No.1 made an application dated 15.04.2003for grant of pension under the SSSP Scheme, 1980 forFreedom Fighters of Goa Liberation Movement Phase–II(1954-55). The State of Goa wrote letter dated 13.02.2004to the respondent No.1 that copy of Samman Pension ordercannot be issued to him since his case has not been approvedso far. The respondent No.1 was, however, informed thathis application for State pension will be placed before theCommittee for further action. The Committee constitutedby State of Goa to consider the cases for grant of Statepension considered the case of respondent No.1 and byproceeding dated 23.07.2004 opined to reject the claim.

2.5.In pursuance of announcement of State of Goa forre-opening of Freedom Fighters Scheme in 2003, the claimof large number of persons were entrusted to Committeeconstituted under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary.After several deliberations ultimately list of 22 personswas approved on 26.12.2007 for State pension in whichrespondent No.1 was also included. On 26.12.2007, thename of respondent No.1 was approved for grant of StatePension and consequently, pension payment order wasissued on 11.03.2008 to respondent No.1 for grant of StatePension w.e.f. 01.12.2007. After receipt of State Pension,the respondent No.1 sent representation dated 06.08.2009to the Government of India for grant of SSS Pension fromthe Government of India. The Government of India vide

letter dated 16.11.2009 communicated respondent No.1 thatcase of respondent No.1 has been examined and it is foundthat respondent No.1 has been granted State Pension in2008 only, hence, he was ineligible for grant of SSS Pensionunder the relaxed criteria for Goa Liberation MovementPhase-II. The respondent No.1 was communicated thatparticipants who were in receipt of State Pension by01.08.2002 are only eligible. On further representation byrespondent No.1, again similar communication was sentby the Government of India to respondent No.1 dated13.11.2014.

C2.6.The respondent No.1 filed writ petition No. 229 of 2016in the High Court of Bombay, Goa at Panaji, praying forfollowing relief:

“A. Declaration that the decision of Government of Indiadated 4/2/03 and the notification dated 17/2/03 to theextent it restricts the entitlement of pension to freedomfighter participants of Goa Liberation Movement PhaseII who were in receipt of pension as on 1/08/2002 isarbitrary null and void being violative of Article 14 ofConstitution of India and for declaration that freedomfighters recognized by the Government of Goa and inreceipt of State Government pension notwithstanding thedate being later than 1/08/02 are entitled to pension.

B. Writ of mandamus, writ in the nature of mandamusdirecting the respondent to consider the application ofpetitioner for grant of pension under the SwatantrataSainik Sanman Pension Scheme 1980 Goa LiberationMovement Phase-II (1954-55).

C. For writ of certiorari, writ in the nature of certiorarior any other writ direction and other quashing and settingaside Communication dated 16/11/09 and 13/11/2014passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs.”

2.7.The appellant could not file any reply to the writ petitionnor case of the respondent No.1 was specifically denied.The High Court after hearing the parties allowed the writpetition and directed the appellant to grant the pension under

SSSP Scheme to the respondent No.1 w.e.f. 11.03.2008.The Government of India aggrieved by the said judgmenthas come up with this appeal. Counter affidavit has beenfiled by respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.2, theState of Goa. The Government of India has filed anadditional affidavit dated 02.12.2019. rejoinder affidavithas also been filed by the appellant.

3. We have heard Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG for appellant,Mrs. Mugdha Pande has been heard for respondent No.1 and Shri PratapVenugopal has appeared for State of Goa.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that to the participantsof Goa Liberation Movement, Phase-II, the SSSP scheme was extendedwith the conditions that only those applicants shall be eligible to receivethe benefits of the scheme who are in receipt of State Pension on01.08.2002. It is submitted that issue of fixation of date was deliberatedand consciously included in the scheme which is apparent from relevantnoting brought on record along with the additional affidavit.

5. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 has been granted StatePension on 11.03.2008 only and he did not fulfil the condition of thescheme which was introduced by the Government Order dated17.02.2003. The Government of India did not commit an error in rejectingthe claim of the respondent No.1. High Court has erred in holding thatcut-off date 01.08.2002 has no relevance. It is further submitted thatHigh Court committed error in allowing the writ petition of respondentNo.1 who did not fulfil the eligibility for grant of SSSP Scheme.6. Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Ms. Mugdha Pande,vehemently refuting the submission of Counsel for the appellant contendsthat the respondent No.1 had been issued Identity Card of freedom fighterin the year 1984 and he had made an application for grant of StatePension on 28.07.2001 which although was rejected in December 2002but subsequently State itself having granted pension w.e.f. 01.12.2007,the respondent No.1 is eligible for grant of SSS Pension.

7. It is submitted that there is no rationale for fixing cut-off date01.08.2002 for grant of SSS Pension to participants of Goa LiberationMovement, Phase-II and there is no nexus with object sought to beachieved. All freedom fighters who are in receipt of State Pension areeligible to SSSP Scheme.

A8. Learned counsel appearing for State of Goa submitted thatclaim of respondent No.1 for grant of State Pension was rejected inDecember 2002 after due enquiry and after obtaining the report fromthe Deputy Inspector General of Police and other authorities. Learnedcounsel for the state of Goa has also produced the original recordspertaining to claim of state pension by respondent No.1 which containsBthe application made by respondent No.1 in the year 2001. The reportsobtained on the said application and decision, rejecting the claim. Therecord also contains the subsequent application of respondent No.1 afterreopening of the State Pension Scheme in year 2003 and approval ofgrant of pension to twenty-two freedom fighters which included the nameCof respondent No.1 also w.e.f. 01.12.2007.

9. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for theparties and perused the record.

10. The issue to be considered in the appeal is as to whether therespondent No.1 was entitled for grant of SSS Pension as per the schemeDdated 17.02.2003 of the Government of India and whether the HighCourt had taken correct decision in allowing the writ petition of respondentNo.1 and further as to whether cut-off date as fixed in the GovernmentOrder dated 17.02.2003 that applicant should be in receipt of StatePension by 01.08.2002 is valid condition.

11. For grant of State Pension, the State of Goa has framed Rulesin the year 1973 and 1988. Goa freedom fighter’s welfare Rules, 1988contains the eligibility for grant of freedom fighters’ pension to personswho participated in National Liberation Movement or Liberation of Goa.Rule 2 is definition clause, Rule 2(1) defined freedom fighters which isFto the following effect: -

“2(I). “Freedom Fighter” means any person who on account ofparticipation in National Liberation Movement or liberation of Goa,had undergone the sufferings listed below:

(a) He/she had been sentenced to imprisonment for not lessGthan 15 days: or

(b) He/she was had suffered imprisonment for not less than15 days (including detention as under trial prisoner; or as prisonerin police custody for interrogation)

(c) He/she was killed in action; or

(d) He/she was sentenced to death; or

(e) He/she died due to police or military firing or lathi chargeor hit by any instruments; or

(f) He/she died after release from Portuguese prison or Custodyprovided that the death is directly attributable to ill treatment/brutalities/torture meted out to him/her during detention or

(g) He/she lost his/her job or means of livelihood or thewhole or substantial part of his/her property due to suchparticipation, dismissal or removal from Government service/semi-Government Organisation /educational institution any otherregistered body duly supported by the record of the said body;or

(h) He/she had gone underground for not less than one yearbut did not suffer imprisonment if he/she was declared by thePortuguese authorities as proclaimed offender or warrant ofarrest was issued against him/her by the Portuguese or anorder of detention was issued against him/her by the Portuguese;or

(i) He/she became permanently incapacitated on account ofparticipation in the liberation movement;”

12. Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, is ascheme of Central Government for grant of pension for those whoparticipated in freedom movement of the country. Paragraph 3 of theSSSP Scheme, 1980 provides for who is eligible, which is to the followingeffect: -

“3. WHO IS ELIGIBLE?

For the purpose of grant of Samman pension under thescheme, freedom fighter is: -

(a)A person who had suffered minimum imprisonment of sixmonths in the mainland jails before Independence. However,ex-INA personnel will be eligible for pension if theimprisonment/detention suffered by them was outside India.The minimum period of actual imprisonment for eligibilityof pension has been reduced to three months, in case ofwomen and SC/ST freedom fighters from 01.08.1980.

AEXPLANATION

1.Detention under the orders of the competent authoritywill be considered as imprisonment.

2.Period of normal remission up to one month will betreated as part of actual imprisonment.

3.In the case of trial ending in conviction, under trialperiod will be counted towards actual imprisonmentsuffered.

4.Broken period of imprisonment will be totalled up forCcomputing the qualifying period.

(b)A person who remained underground for more than sixmonths provided he was:

1.a proclaimed offender; or

2.one on whom an award for arrest/head was announced;Dor

3.one for whose detention order was issued but not served.

(c)A person interned in his home or externed from his districtprovided the period of internment/externment was sixEmonths or more.

(d)A person whose property was confiscated or attached andsold due to participation in the freedom struggle.

(e)A person who became permanently incapacitated duringfiring or lathi charge.F

(f)A person who lost his job (Central or State Government)and thus means of livelihood for participation in nationalmovement.

MARTYR is person who died or who was killed inaction or in detention or was awarded capital punishmentGwhile participation in National Movement for emancipationof India. It will include an ex-INA or ex-Military personwho died fighting the British.”

13. The eligibility under the SSSP Scheme, 1980 is, thus, entirelydifferent from the eligibilities for grant of pension under the Goa Rules,H

1973 and 1988. The applicability of SSSP Scheme, 1980 was also extendedto other movements apart from mainstream of the liberation struggle ofthe country. Paragraph 4 of the SSSP Scheme, 1980 deals with “Whatare the movements/mutinies connected with National Freedom Struggle”,which is to the following effect: -

“WHAT ARE THE MOVEMENTS/MUTINIES CONNECTEDWITH NATIONAL FREEDOM STRUGGLE

4. Apart from the mainstream of the liberation struggle themovements/mutinies which were directed against the British(French in case of Pondicherry and Portuguese in case ofGoa) with freedom of the country as its ultimate goal are alsotreated as part of National Freedom Struggle for the purposeof grant of pension unless any movement(s) is specificallydecided as not qualifying for the grant of Samman pension.

The Movements for merger of erstwhile Princely Stateswithin the Indian Union after 15th August, 1947 and thefreedom struggle in the former French and Portuguesepossession in India (Colonies) are considered as part of theNational Freedom Movement for the purpose of grant ofSamman Pension under Scheme.”

14. Thus, movements/mutinies, which were directed with regardto Portuguese in case of Goa was also covered by the said SSSP Scheme.Thus, Freedom Fighters of the Goa, who were eligible according to theSSSP Scheme, 1980 were also eligible to apply for SSSP Scheme, 1980.The respondent No.1 himself had applied for grant of SSS PensionScheme, 1980 in the year 1982 itself as noted above.

15. Although, Goa Freedom Fighters, who fulfil the conditions underSSSP Scheme, 1980 were eligible for grant of pension, theRepresentations were received from various quarters for grant of pensionto all the participants of Goa Liberation Movement particularly to those,who participated in second phase of movement (1954-55), which issuewas under examination by the Home Ministry. The letter dated 19.08.2002written to the Chief Secretary of Government of Maharashtra/Rajasthan/Haryana/Goa/Madhya Pradesh/Uttar Pradesh clearly mentions the abovefact, which is to the following effect:-

“No.8/10/99-FF(P)

Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Home Affairs/GirhMantralaya

Freedom Fighters Division

Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market,

Date, New Delhi, the 19 August, 2002.

The Chief Secretary,

Government of Maharashtra/Rajasthan/Haryana/Goa/ MadhyaPradesh/Uttar Pradesh.

Subject: - Grant of Freedom Fighters Pension to the participantsof Goa Liberation Movement under the “Swatantrata SainikSamman Pension Scheme, 1980”

Sir,

I am directed to say that the participants of Goa LiberationMovement who fulfilled the eligibility criteria of “Swatantrata SainikSamman Pension Scheme, 1980” have been sanctioned freedomfighters’ pension by the Central Government. However,representations/ requests have been received from various quartersincluding VIPs for grant of pension to all the participants of GoaLiberation Movement particularly to those who participated in theSecond phase of the Movement (1954-55). This issue is underexamination of this Ministry for quite long time.

2. You may be aware that the Second phase of the Movementwas organized in 1954-55. It is said that Portuguese Militaryauthorities shot dead various Satyagrahis including some batchleaders and large number of participants were physically pushedback into the adjoining territories. Thus, the participants of thisMovement were never arrested, tried and punished by thePortuguese Government and/or by the Martial Law Court butphysically thrown back out of Goa. There is no authenticated

record as to how many Satyagrahis were thrown back primarilybecause no such records were maintained. In the absence of anyrecords of the sufferings of die participants, they could not besanctioned FF pension as they do not fulfil the eligibility criterialaid down under the Scheme.

3. Ministry of Home Affairs is considering that the eligibility criteriamay be relaxed to provide pension under the “SSSP Scheme,1980”to the freedom fighters of Goa Liberation Movement, Phase II(1954-55) who have already been sanctioned pension by the StateGovernment by 1.8.2002. To examine this proposal further, it isrequested that the authenticated list of all those freedom fighters(indicating details of their names, father’s name, addresses anddate of sanction of pension by the State Government) who havebeen sanctioned freedom fighters pension by State Governmentup to 1.8.2002 for their taking part in the above Movement, maybe sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs (Freedom FightersDivision) urgently so that the proposal may be processed further.

Yours faithfully,(Abdul Rashid)

Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India”

16. The Central Government after examining the representationsreceived from various quarters decided to extend the SSSP Scheme,1980 to the participants of Goa Liberation Movement.

17. The SSSP Scheme has been extended by relaxing the conditionscontained therein to the participants of Goa Liberation Movement,Phase-II (1954-55) by Government Order dated 17.02.2003.Paragraph 1 of the scheme is as follows: -

“1. I am directed to refer to this Ministry’s letter of even numberdated 16[th]/19[th] August, 2002 on the above subject and to informyou that it has now been decided to grant central pension to theparticipants of 2[nd] Phase of Goa Liberation movement (1954-55)who have been granted freedom fighters pension by the StateGovernment by 1[st] August, 2002, by relaxing the eligibility criteriaunder the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.”

18. The Scheme dated 17.02.2003 clearly provided that the CentralPension is to be granted to the participants of the second phase of Goa

ALiberation Movement who have been granted freedom fighter pensionby the State Government by 01.08.2002. Whether the condition of cut-off date of 01.08.2002 as fixed in the Scheme has any rationale or thesaid date is arbitrary and despite not fulfilling the such condition, therespondent is entitled for grant of pension are the main questions to beanswered.B

19. We may notice that before the High Court the appellant hadnot filed any reply nor gave any justification to restrict the entitlement ofpension of freedom fighters who were in receipt of State Pension as on01.08.2002. The appellant having not filed any reply, the High Court heldthat so far as the averments and prayers of the writ petitions areCconcerned, there being no specific denial nor even reply filed by therespondent, therefore, contentions and ground raised by the petitionerneed to be accepted.

20. When this case was being heard by this Bench, query wasput to the counsel for the appellant as to what is the rationale for fixingDcut-off date 01.08.2002. By order dated 19.11.2019, parties werepermitted to file additional affidavits within two weeks and it wasthereafter the appellant has filed additional affidavit on 03.12.2019.

21. Learned counsel for the appellant has brought on record thenotes of the meeting dated 02.08.2002 chaired by Deputy Prime MinisterEwhere cut-off date 01.08.2002 was fixed. Note contains the details oflist of freedom fighters received from different states with regard tofreedom fighters who took part in second phase of Goa LiberationMovement. The Government of Maharashtra had enclosed list of 1716freedom fighters, the Government of Rajasthan had sanctioned pensionFto 24 persons. It has been noticed that total number of freedom fighterswho may be eligible from State of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, MadhyaPradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Goa and Haryana could be approximately 3,500.It was noticed that the scheme cannot be kept open ended and the datefixed to consider only those freedom fighters eligible for relaxation underSSSP Scheme who had taken part in second phase of Goa LiberationGMovement(1954-55) and who had already been sanctioned the freedomfighters pension by the concerned State Government before fixed datesuch as 01.08.2002. It is useful to refer to paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of theNote: -

“3. Hon’ble Dy.PM expressed the view that large number ofHsenior leaders like Prof. Madhu Dhandavate, Shri Ram Naik, Shri

Sharad Pawar had pleaded the case of freedom fighters of PhaseII of Goa Liberation Movement and the matter was pending formore than two years now. There was merit in granting them thebenefits of the SSS Pension Scheme in relaxation of the eligibilitycriteria on similar grounds on which the relaxation was given tofreedom fighters of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. While appreciatingour apprehension that if the scheme was kept open ended, wemay be flooded with more and more applications, the Dy.PM wasof the view that we may fix date and consider only those freedomfighters eligible for the relaxation under the SSS Pension Schemewho had taken part in Phase II of the Goa Liberation Movementin 1954-55 and who had already been sanctioned the freedomfighters pension by the concerned State Governments before afixed dated such as 01.08.2002.

4. When the delegation led by Prof. Dhandavate called on theDy.PM and handed over the representation as at FR, Dy.PM askedthem about how many freedom fighters from which States wouldbe eligible for the Pension in case relaxation under the Schemewere provided. It was pointed out by the delegates that therewould be approximately 3500 freedom fighters who may becomeeligible from the States of Maharashtra, Haryana, Rajasthan,Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Goa. The figure excludedthe freedom fighters from Karnataka (2225) who had beensanctioned pension by the State Government but whose pensionwas subsequently cancelled by the Government of Karnataka in1995.

5. After discussions, Dy.PM desired that we may take action asunder: -

(i) Provide relaxation under the SSS Pension Scheme, 1980 tothe freedom fighters of Goa Liberation Movement, Phase II(1954-55) who had already been sanctioned Pension by theState Governments of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Haryana,Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Goa by 01.08.2002.

(ii) We may write to the State Governments concerned to sendus list of such freedom fighters, immediately, However, suchlists should be confined to cases where the freedom fighters’pension had been actually sanctioned by the State Governmentby 01.08.2002.

(iii) The approximate figure of the freedom fighters eligible forthis relaxation is 3500. Eligibility criteria for the grant of SSSPension will be the grant of freedom fighters’ pension by theState Government by 01.08.2002 for his having taken part inthe Goa Liberation Movement during the years 1954-55.”

B22. Subsequently, the cabinet approved the scheme and schemedated 17.02.2003 was issued by the Government of India incorporatingthe cut-off date to 01.08.2002.

23. From the material which has been brought on record, it doesappear that Government of India deliberated on the issue of cut-off dateCand the cut-off date was consciously fixed for extending the benefit ofSSSP scheme to participants of Goa Liberation Movement, Phase-II.The eligibility under the SSSP Scheme, 1980, is entirely different fromthe eligibility of the State pension under the Goa Rules. Goa was liberatedin 1961. State has framed the rules initially in 1973 and thereafter in1988. Freedom Fighters were sanctioned pensions in aforesaid Goa RulesDat least after 1973. The question of extension of SSSP scheme to theparticipants of Goa Liberation, Phase-II was being considered by theCentral Government from the year 2000 and ultimately, it was extendedby Scheme dated 17.02.2003. Already, more than forty years have beenpassed for Goa Liberation and more than 30 years have been passed forEstart of sanction of pension by the State of Goa. SSSP Scheme, 1980,had been extended to Goa Liberation Movement, Phase-II by relaxingthe conditions which were there for grant of SSS Pension Scheme, 1980.When benefit is granted in relaxation of Scheme, it is open for theGovernment to put conditions for eligibility.F24. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion thatthere is rationale for extending the Scheme with cut-off date. Thesubmission of learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that there was nonexus with the object sought to be achieved in fixation of cut-off datei.e. 01.08.2002. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits thatwhen the object of SSS Pension Scheme is to grant the benefit of pensionGto all Freedom Fighters, who participated in the Goa Liberation Movement,there is no intelligible differentia between Freedom Fighters, who weregranted State pension by 01.08.2002 and those, who were granted pensionsubsequent to 01.08.2002. Elaborating the argument, it is further submittedthat in any view of the matter in the Cut-off date, there is no nexus withHthe object sought to be achieved. It is submitted that due to there being

no intelligible differentia and there being no nexus with the object soughtto be achieved, the cut-off date 01.08.2002 was clearly arbitrary andliable to be struck down.

25. We have already noticed that the SSSP Scheme, 1980 providedfor eligibilities for Freedom Fighters to make an application under theSSSP Scheme, 1980. Freedom Fighters of the Goa were also includedand those who fulfil the conditions therein were entitled to grant of thepension. In the present case, we are concerned with the SSSP Scheme,1980. The object of the Scheme was to sanction pension under theScheme, 1980, who fulfil the eligibilities as per the Scheme. The Statepension for which Scheme and Rules have been formulated by differentStates including the State of Goa were on different eligibilities and themere fact that person is eligible or entitled to State pension does notipso facto makes him eligible for the SSSP Scheme, 1980. The object ofthe SSSP Scheme, 1980 was to grant the Freedom Fighters CentralPension to those, who fulfil the eligibility which object was clearly fulfilledin including the Goa Liberation Movement also under the Scheme. Asnoted above, representations were received from various quarters toextend the SSSP Scheme, 1980 to participants of Goa LiberationMovement particularly, those, who participated in the Second phase ofthe Movement (1954-55). The Central Government decided to relax theconditions of eligibility under SSSP Scheme, 1980 by Scheme dated17.02.2003 and while relaxing the Scheme cut-off date 01.08.2002 wasfixed for making eligible the participants of Goa Liberation Movement.We have already noticed the rationale for fixing the cut-off date, whichwas fixed after due deliberation and consideration of relevant facts.

26. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent No.1 isthat there was no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by fixingthe cut-off date 01.08.2002. As noticed above, the object of SSSP Scheme,1980 was to grant Central Pension to those who were eligible under thesaid Scheme. The Freedom Fighters of the Goa Liberation Movementwere already included in the Scheme, 1980, who were eligible as per thesaid Scheme. Thus, with regard to Freedom Fighters of Goa LiberationMovement, the Scheme, 1980 covered them and the object was to grantonly those Freedom Fighters of Goa Liberation Movement, who fulfilledthe eligibility of SSSP Scheme, 1980. When Scheme was relaxed andextended to participants of the Goa Liberation Movement Second Phase,relaxation was granted in the eligibility as provided in the SSSP Scheme,

A1980 with the condition that those who are in receipt of State pension by01.08.2002 should be extended the benefit of relaxation. The Schemewas not an open-ended Scheme and relaxation was granted to particularcategory of persons, who were in receipt of the State pension by01.08.2002. The relaxation granted by order dated 17.02.2003 cannotbe said to be the object of the Central Government. The object underBSSSP Scheme, 1980 was always and still is to grant Freedom Fighterspension to those who fulfil the eligibility of SSSP Scheme, 1980. Thesubmission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that object ofSSSP Scheme, 1980 was to grant central pension to all those, who are inreceipt of the State pension cannot be accepted. By relaxing, the SSSPCScheme, 1980 for limited category, the object of the main Schemeshall not be lost nor those who are not covered by relaxed conditions canclaim right to grant of SSSP Scheme, 1980. We, thus, are of the viewthat the Scheme dated 17.02.2003 has intelligible differentia and alsonexus with the object. When relaxation is granted to limited category,the others, who are not covered by the Scheme cannot claim any violationDof right of equality. Right of equality can be claimed only by those whofulfil the eligibilities under the SSSP Scheme, 1980.27. The submission which has further been pressed by the counselfor respondent No.1 is that when ultimately the state has accepted therespondent No.1 was entitled for State Pension, although, in the yearE2008, there is no justification for denying him the benefit. It is submittedthat respondent No.1 had applied for grant of State Pension much before01.08.2002 and if the State had wrongly rejected it earlier, the claim ofthe respondent No.1 cannot be prejudiced.

28. We have carefully examined and looked into the materialsFbefore us as well as the original records. In the subsequent grant ofpension to the respondent No.1 in the year 2008, there is no reference orclaim that earlier rejection of claim of respondent No.1 was unjustifiedor was wrong. The scheme was reopened in the year 2003 by the Stateof Goa and in response to the reopening of the scheme, applicationsGwere received and after scrutinizing the claim of respondent No.1sanctioned w.e.f. 01.12.2007. The Sanction of the Scheme granted tothe respondent from 01.12.2007 cannot be read to mean that he wassanctioned from the date when his earlier application was rejected orfrom the date, he made the application.

29. The High Court has referred to and relied on the judgment ofthis Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari and Others Vs. Union of Indiaand Others, (1993) supp. 3 SCC 2. In the above case, one of thegrounds for rejecting the application for grant of SSS Pension was thatthe petitioner had made an application after the date for making theapplication as specified in the scheme expired. This Court held that thedate prescribed inviting the claim was more of the matter of administrativeconvenience than as rigid time limit. In paragraph 7 of the judgment,following has been laid down by this Court: -

“7. As regards the contention that the petitioners had filedtheir applications after the date prescribed in that behalf, weare afraid that the Government stand is not justifiable. It iscommon knowledge that those who participated in the freedomstruggle either at the national level or in the erstwhile NizamState, are scattered all over the country and most of them mayeven be inhabiting the remotest parts of the rural areas. Whatis more, almost all of them must have now grown pretty old, ifthey are alive. Where the freedom fighters are not alive andtheir widows and the unmarried daughters have to preferclaims, the position may still be worse with regard to theirknowledge of the prescribed date. What is more, if the Schemehas been introduced with the genuine desire to assist andhonour those who had given the best part of their life for thecountry, it ill behoves the Government to raise pleas oflimitation against such claims. In fact, the Government, if it ispossible for them to do so, should find out the freedom fightersor their dependants and approach them with the pensioninstead of requiring them to make applications for the same.That would be the true spirit of working out such Schemes.The Scheme has rightly been renamed in 1985 as the SwatantraSainik Samman Pension Scheme to accord with its object. We,therefore, cannot countenance the plea of the Governmentthat the claimants would only be entitled to the benefit of theScheme if they made applications before particular datenotwithstanding that in fact, they had suffered theimprisonment and made the sacrifices and were thus otherwisequalified to receive the benefit. We are, therefore, of the viewthat whatever the date on which the claimants make the

Aapplications, the benefit should be made available to them.The date prescribed in any past or future notice inviting theclaims, should be regarded more as matter of administrativeconvenience than as rigid time-limit.”

30. The date for making an application in the Scheme, as in theBabove case the last date for application for considering the freedomfighter’s pension may not be rigid rule as rightly held by this Court inMukund Lal Bhandari’s case but present is case where SSSP Schemehas been extended by relaxing the scheme to Goa Liberation Movement,Phase-II, by fixing cut-off date for consideration under the schemewhich is condition for grant of SSS Pension. The judgment in MukundCLal Bhandari is thus distinguishable and cannot be pressed in servicein facts of the present case.

31. As noted above, before the High Court appellant could not filereply and bring the relevant facts and materials. The appellant ought tohave been careful and produced relevant materials before the High CourtDfor its consideration, but given opportunity by this Court, relevant materialshave been brought on the record by way of additional Affidavit whichmaterials we have perused. The appeal is being decided after taking intoconsideration the relevant materials brought on record.

32. We thus are of the view that there was no error in rejectingEthe claim of respondent No.1 for grant of SSSP scheme as communicatedby communication letters dated 16.11.2009 and 13.11.2014. TheGovernment Scheme dated 17.02.2003 also did not suffer from anyinfirmity.

33. In result, the appeal is allowed. The writ petition of theFrespondent No.1 stands dismissed.

Ankit Gyan

Appeal allowed.