Petitioner sought directions for Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension for her late husband, a freedom fighter whose claim was rejected ~14 years ago. Court held the petition hopelessly delayed without credible explanation for the delay and dismissed it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~49
KALAWATI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr Mahabir Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms Preeti Singh, Mr Gagan Deep Sharma, Ms Reena Singh, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr Mukesh Pandey, Advocate for UOI.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R
% 09.04.2019
CM APPL. 16735/2019
W.P.(C) 3644/2019
the year 1938-39 in Hyderabad. It is stated that late Sh Chhuttan Lal was arrested by the State Police of the Nizam of Hyderabad on 05.06.1939 and was subsequently convicted. He was thereafter released on 17.08.1939.
(W.P. (C) No. 4184/1997), inter alia , praying that respondents be directed to grant Samman Pension to the petitioner with effect from 21.01.1994. It is stated that while the petition was pending, the petitioner received a communication dated 03.02.1988 from the Ministry of Home Affairs, informing the petitioner that the Central Government would consider the petitioner's case for grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension and called upon the petitioner to submit the necessary documents.
petitioner's representation was rejected are set out below:-
“4. Your claim has been examined as per the provisions of the Scheme, on the basis of documents furnished by you and the directions of the Hon'ble High' Court. The following discrepancies/shortcomings have been noticed:
(i) In your representation dated 15.4.2005 you have not produced any documentary evidence from official records in support of the jail suffering of your late husband.; (ii) You have furnished two CPC’s, one from Shri Mam Chand and another from Sh. Lajpat Rai. However, none of the CPCs furnished by you is in the requisite format. Moreover, since you have not furnished a valid Nonavailability of Records Certificate from the State Government, the CPCs provided by you cannot be considered,
(iii) Your husband has claimed jail suffering of 2 months and 12 days, whereas minimum six months’ actual jail suffering is required to be eligible for grant of Samman pension. Since the claimed jail suffering is less than six months, your claim cannot be acceded to.
(iv) The State Government has not furnished their specific recommendation for grant of dependent family pension. In the absence of the specific recommendation of the State Government, you are not eligible for pension.
In view of the above, your claim does not fulfil the requisite eligibility criteria and evidentiary requirements of the Swatantrala Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.
Your claim for grant of dependent family pension under provisions of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 is, therefore, rejected.”
APRIL 09, 2019/ pkv
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension after nearly 14 years of rejection can be entertained.
Whether the petitioner can establish that the delay in approaching this Court is left open.
Whether the petition should be dismissed on the ground of hopelessly delayed claim with no credible explanation.
Kalawati
Union of India
Vibhu Bakhru
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
