Karnataka High Court Reverses Order Granting Freedom Fighters' Pension To 89-Yrs Old Widow
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the order of a Single bench which directed State authorities to grant freedom fighters’ pension together with all arrears to an 89-year-old widow.A division bench of Justice R Devdas and Justice Rajesh Rai K sitting at Dharwad allowed the State's appeal observing,“In the year 2014 the guidelines issued by the Central Government in respect of...
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the order of a Single bench which directed State authorities to grant freedom fighters’ pension together with all arrears to an 89-year-old widow.
A division bench of Justice R Devdas and Justice Rajesh Rai K sitting at Dharwad allowed the State's appeal observing,
“In the year 2014 the guidelines issued by the Central Government in respect of the disbursement of 'Central Government Sanman Pension Scheme' which was followed by the State Government also, passed an order that ‘No pension shall be sanctioned in the name of freedom fighter after his/her death even his/her matter was under examination’. Hence, in our considered opinion, the first appellant (State Government) rightly rejected the claim of the respondent for grant of freedom fighters' pension.”
Respondent's husband had made an application for freedom fighters' pension before the Karnataka government which was allowed in 1992. However pursuant to a GO directing re-verification of all pensioners, a recommendation came to be issued by the concerned Deputy Commissioner to cancel the pension of Respondent's husband. In 2003, Respondent's husband expired.
After 12 years, the Respondent filed a representation along with copies of co-prisoners' certificate and sought pension along with arrears.
State argued that claim of Respondent's husband was rightly rejected and the same has attained finality as it was not challenged during the husband's lifetime. It was further argued that Respondent failed to produce relevant original documents in support of her claim.
The bench went through the records and observed that from order of Appellant it is clear that the documents produced by the Respondent are not genuine to prove her claim.
Court also noted that Single Judge while allowing the writ petition held that the 2014 Guidelines are prospective in nature and do not apply to the claim of the Respondent in whose husband’s favour pension had already been granted in the year 1992.
Disagreeing, the Division bench held,
“This view of the learned single Judge cannot be accepted for the reason that, though the said circular is prospective in nature, nevertheless, the respondent approached the appellants in the year 2014 by submitting the representation by claiming the pension. By that time, the circular/guidelines of the year 2014 were already issued and were in existence. In such circumstances, though the circular/guidelines are prospective in nature the same will be applicable in the case of respondent also.”
Relying on the Supreme Court judgement in Union of India Vs. Bikash R Bhowmik & Ors. (2004), the court held, “The dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above case is squarely applicable to the case on hand. In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.”
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Others And Savantrewwa
Case No. WA No 100210/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 277
Date of Order: 07-07-2023
Appearance: AAG Vidyavathi M Kotturshettar and HCGP V S Kalasurmath for Appellant.
Advocates H.M.Dharigond, Sangeetha F Kallimani for Respondent.