Sanction dependent pension to freedom fighter's widow, rules HC

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, January 8

Coming to the rescue of a freedom fighter’s widow, the Punjab and Haryana HC has rapped the Union of India for inaction before making it clear that the authorities concerned were required to do the needful for sanctioning forthwith dependent freedom fighter pension to her under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme.

Justice Raj Mohan Singh also held the petitioner entitled to arrears of pension from November 3, 2017, along with 9 per cent per annum interest. The matter was brought to the HC’s notice after a petition was filed against the Union of India and another respondent by Vidya Devi through counsel Jyoti Sareen.

She was seeking directions for the respondents to grant dependent family pension under the scheme from November 3, 2017, when her husband died. The Bench was told that her husband Ram Saroop, a freedom fighter, was drawing freedom fighter pension under the scheme. He was also drawing state freedom fighter pension from Punjab, which had already sanctioned dependent’s freedom fighters pension to the petitioner.

Justice Raj Mohan Singh said it was apparent that the application for dependent freedom fighter pension was submitted in 2018. Till date the needful had not been done. He observed the competent authority time and again raised objections, which according to the petitioner’s counsel, were unfounded as she was already drawing state freedom fighter pension from Punjab. Justice Raj Mohan Singh said the respondents had taken a “very hyper-technical view in the context of required documents”. Grant of pension by the state was a relevant factor to be considered for accepting the genuineness of certificates acted upon. The respondents could have resorted to the guidelines for disbursement of central Samman Pension to be followed by authorised public sector banks to complete the missing gaps while awarding the requisite pension to the petitioner. Despite more than three years, the needful had not been done till date.

“The proceedings undertaken are suggestive of the fact that respondents have not responded to a genuine cause of the petitioner despite availability of remedy in terms of the guidelines,” Justice Raj Mohan Singh observed.