MRIDULA DEVI vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 08th July, 2024
Pronounced on: 06th August, 2024
+ W.P.(C) 15038/2021 & CM APPL. 21385/2022
MRIDULA DEVI …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. I. C. Mishra and Ms. Swati Chakroborty, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS …..Respondents
Through: Ms. Nidhi Banga, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Nishant Kumar, Advocate for R-1 to 3.
Mr. Samir Ali Khan and Mr. Shivam Prashar, Advocates for R-4.
CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
1. Through this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950,1 Smt. Mridula Devi, the Petitioner, seeks a direction to Respondents to award the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension2 to her late husband, Mr. Ramanand Singh, for the period from 25th December 1981 to 30th January, 2011. Additionally, she requests continuation of pension including all accrued arrears to herself, following the demise of her husband from 31st January, 2011.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. The Petitioner, a senior citizen and widow of late Shri Ramanand Singh, asserts that her husband participated in the Quit India Movement, 1942. Following his involvement, a criminal case was registered against him, numbered GR Case No. 572/1942. After unsuccessful attempts to arrest him, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) issued a proclamation on 12th March, 1945, followed by an order to attach his property. On 28th May, 1945, late Mr. Ramanand Singh and several associates were declared Proclaimed Offenders (PO) under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 in connection with this case. He remained in hiding until December 1946. Subsequently, on 25th December 1981, he applied for the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 19803 previously known as the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972.
3. Respondent No. 3 rejected the afore-noted application through a letter dated 27th January, 2010. Aggrieved by this rejection, Shri Ramanand Singh filed W.P. (C) 49/2010 before this High Court, which was dismissed on 22nd August, 2013. Following his death on 30th January, 2011, the Petitioner, as his legal representative, filed LPA No. 48/2015 challenging the judgment dated 22nd August, 2013 which was decided by the Division Bench on 30th January, 2015 issuing specific directions as follows:
5. We dispose of the appeal issuing a direction to the Union of India to make a reference to the State of Bihar with respect to Annexure P-2-filed along with the writ petition; certified copy thereof being with the appellant. The reference would be made to the State of Bihar. The query would be: are the contents thereof authentic. Based thereon necessary decision would be taken afresh by the Central Government.
6. If the Central Government wants the original of Annexure P-2 to be submitted to it, a communication shall be sent to the appellant to do needful.
7. The Central Government shall make a reference to the State of Bihor within six weeks from today and while making the reference annexure P-2 filed with the writ petition would be sent to the State of Bihar for verification and authentication.
8. The State of Bihar shall do the necessary verification and submit a response to the Central Government within two months of receipt of communication from the Central Government. Within two months thereafter the Central Government would take the necessary action.
9. If the late husband of the petitioner is found entitled to the freedom fighter pension, same shall be disbursed to the appellant from the date her husband made the application. Her entitlement to receive the benefit as the widow of late Sh. Ramanand Singh would be considered in said eventuality and amount payable shall also be paid to the appellant.
10. No costs
[Emphasis Supplied]
4. The Petitioner contends that the afore-noted order of the Division Bench has not been complied with, which has compelled her to file the present petition.
5. Respondents No. 1-3, in their counter affidavit, assert that they have made diligent efforts to comply with the order and have issued communication dated 05th March, 2015 and 28th April, 2015, requesting State of Bihar Respondent No. 4 to verify Annexure P-2 (GR No.572/42). This request was reiterated in a subsequent reminder dated 14th May, 2015. Responding to these communications, State of Bihar/Respondent No. 4, on 27th August, 2015, forwarded a copy of a letter from the District Magistrate of Madhubani dated 04th August, 2015 (Annexure-R1), which included certain documents. However, State of Bihar/Respondent No. 4 has not provided any specific comments or recommendations regarding the authenticity of Annexure P-2. Even in the affidavit submitted to the Court, State of Bihar/Respondent No. 4 remains evasive, failing to categorically confirm the authenticity of GR No. 572/42(Annexure-P2). Consequently, in the absence of such verification the Petitioner has not established that her late husband meets the eligibility criteria for the grant of pension.
6. Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 also explain that since all efforts to get Annexure-P-2 verified failed and the feasibility of receiving the original of Annexure-P2 appeared bleak, in order to comply with the order of the Division Bench, they re-examined the claim Petitioners claim on the basis of available documents and rejected the same vide order dated 4th November 2022.
7. To support their decision, Respondent No.1, 2 and 3 contend as follows:
7.1 As per clause 6 of the SSSP Scheme, an advance copy of the application has to be sent to the Deputy Secretary (India Freedom fighter division), Ministry of Home Affairs, as well as the State government. However, neither late Mr. Ramanand Singh, nor the Petitioner had complied with this requirement.
7.2 The SSSP Scheme requires proof of underground suffering for at least 6 months. However, the copy of list of disposed of record (Annexure P2) submitted as proof, does not mention the time period late Mr. Ramanand Singh actually remained underground.
7.3 Respondent No.4s letter dated 16th March, 1985 mentions that the relevant records are not available, hence, in the absence of original GR No. 572/42 the documents remain unverified by District Magistrate, Mahbubani.
7.4 Mr. Shital Prasad Singh has issued Personal Knowledge Certificate4 in favour of Sh. Ramanand Singh. However, on scrutiny of the said document, signatures on it dont match with the signatures on his own SSSP application.
7.5 Mr. Yamuna Singh also issued a PKC in favour of late Mr. Ramanand Singh. In the said PKC, Mr. Singh himself acknowledges that he was in jail from 18th August, 1942 to 16th June, 1946. Therefore, a person who is alleged to be underground during the same period could not have issued a PKC for Petitioners husband. Moreover, Mr. Yamuna Singh had affixed his thumb impression on the PKC issued in favour of late Mr. Ramanand Singh, which is extremely odd considering the fact that PKC issued by him for another person bore his signatures. This calls into question the authenticity of the PKC issued in favour of late Mr. Ramanand Singh.
7.6 Clause 1.5 of the revised policy guidelines of the SSSP stipulates as follows:
no pension shall be sanctioned in the name of the freedom fighter after his/her death even if his/her matter was under examination this also entails that no life time arrears or dependent pension shall be sanctioned to his/her spouse/daughter after the death of the freedom fighter
Late Mr. Ramanand Singh passed away 30th January, 2011 without having sanction in his favour. Thus, the Petitioner is not entitled to the claim of SSSP in the name of her late husband Mr. Ramanand Singh.
7.7 Since the instant petition only seeks compliance of directions issued vide order dated 31st January, 2015, which has been done, the prayer made in the instant writ petition does not survive anymore.
7.8. The SSSP scheme is a document-based scheme, and every applicant must fulfil the criteria as required under the scheme. The documents must be produced by the applicant and duly verified by the state government which has not happened in the present case.
Relevant provisions of the SSSP Scheme
8. As per the provisions of SSSP Scheme, any person who claims underground suffering is eligible for SSS Pension, provided the following conditions are fulfilled: –
Underground Suffering: – A person, who on account of his participation in freedom struggle remained underground for more than six months, provided he was: A). a proclaimed offender; or; B). One on whom an award for arrest or head was announced; or C). One for whose detention, order was issued but not served. Voluntary underground suffering or self-exile for party work under the command or the party leaders is not covered as eligible suffering for pension under the Scheme.
The Applicant must reproduce following evidence to prove underground suffering:5
2.2 In case of underground suffering:
(a) Documentary evidence by way of Courts/Govts orders proclaiming the applicant as an absconder, announcing an award on his head or for his arrest or ordering his detention.
(b) In case records of the relevant period are not available, secondary evidence in the form of a Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) from a prominent freedom fighter who has proven jail suffering of a minimum two years and who happened to be from the same administrative unit could be considered provided the State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned, after due verification of the claim and its genuineness, certifies that documentary evidences from the official records in support of the claimed sufferings were not available.
Thus, for a person to prove underground suffering they must either provide Primary evidence i.e., documentary evidence in terms of clause 2.2 (a) or secondary evidence in terms of clause 2.2(b) of the Eligibility and Evidentiary requirements.
Analysis & Findings
9. The Petitioners claim for SSS Pension hinges on the document identified as GR Case No. 572/1942 [Annexure-P2]. This document proves that her late husband was involved in activities during the freedom struggle that led to legal or governmental actions which were faced by freedom fighters. She relies upon the certified copy of this document, as primary as primary evidence6 of her late husbands underground suffering and argues that the necessary condition for eligibility under the SSSP is met. A screenshot of the said document is as follows:
10. The Paragraph 10 of the afore-noted document lists names of proclaimed offenders which includes the name of Petitioners late husband – Mr. Ramanand Singh. Thus, indeed there exists a court record declaring late Mr. Singh as a proclaimed offender.
11. The next question for consideration is whether the document in question satisfies the requirements for primary evidence as prescribed in Clause 2.2 of the Eligibility Conditions and Evidentiary Requirements of the SSS Pension Scheme.
12. The objections raised by the Respondents regarding the authenticity and adequacy of the primary evidence are not tenable. The Petitioner possesses a certified copy of the relevant document, which she has duly submitted in its original form to the Under Secretary of the Freedom Fighters Division, Government of India, as evidenced by the communication dated 16th February, 2022. The acknowledgment receipt attached to the said communication, is evident:
13. The Central Government, adhering to this Court directions, sought verification of Annexure P-2 by issuing communications to the State of Bihar on 5th March, 2015, and 28th April, 2015. In response, although the State of Bihar has not explicitly confirmed the authenticity of the document, their reply affidavit largely details the procedural timeline and the exchanges between the State of Bihar and the Central Government regarding this matter. Despite the lack of explicit confirmation, significant developments have emerged which bolster the genuineness of the document. In response to a specific query from this Court, a critical piece of evidence was brought forward. Counsel for Respondent No. 4 relied upon Annexure R-1, a communication dated 4th August, 2015, from the District Magistrate of Madhubani to the Government Home (Special) Department in Bihar, Patna. This document outlines the verification steps undertaken by local authorities, providing a detailed account of the measures taken to authenticate the contents of GR Case No. 572/1942. Furthermore, an inquiry report forwarded to Respondent No. 3, as evidenced by a communication dated 27th August, 2015 also suggests that a process was indeed undertaken to examine and verify the details contained in GR Case No. 572/1942. The said communications are excerpted hereunder:
Annexure R-1 (Communication dated 4th August, 2015)
(District General Branch) Letter 1518
District Magistrate Madhubani.
To,
Deputy Secretary to the Government
Home (Special) Department Bihar, Patna.
Madhubani, dated 4th August 2015.
Subject:- L.P.A. 48/2015 Regarding compliance of the order of Smt. Mridula Devi Vs. Government of India. your letter no. 137, dated- 27.03.2015, letter no. 212, dated 13.05.2015 and letter no. 248, dated 09.06.2015
Sir,
On 30.01.2015 in Writ Petition No.48/2015 filed by Smt. Mridula Devi through the above relevant letter. In compliance of the order passed, on the basis of the record executed by SDO, Madhubani in May 1946, the demand for non-availability certificate has been made after checking the court record
572/42 issued from the source.
It is to be said that the said fact has been verified from the District Archives, Madhubani. According to the report received, an attested photocopy of the court record G.R. No. 572/42 issued on the basis of the record executed by SDO, Madhubani in 1945 has been provided. Therefore, attaching the photocopy of the said court record G.R. No. 572/42, is being sent for necessary action.
Annexure R-2 (Communication dated 27th August, 2015)
Bihar Government
Home (Special) Department. 3)
Sender, Umashankar Ram,
Deputy Secretary to the Government.
To,
Under Secretary, Freedom Fighters Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, 2nd Floor, NDCC 0-11 Bhawan Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-110001.
Patna, Date – 27/08/2015
Subject : Mrs. Mridula Devi, Husband – Late O Ramanand Singh, Village + Po O – Lucknow, G O R O Police Station – Lucknow, District – Madhubani No. 0 – 572/42 Regarding sending the verification report.
Context: Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of Indias letter / dated- 14.05.2015
Sir,
as per the directions, in relation to the above subject, it is to be said that by the relevant letter submitted by Mrs. Mridula Devis husband – Late Ramanand Singh, G. R. No. 0 The inquiry report of 572 / 42 is attached for necessary action.
Regards,
Secretary to the Govt.
21.08.2015
Annexure R-4 (Communication dated 23rd March, 2023)
(District General Branch)
Letter No. 963/District General
Sender
Arvind Kumar Verma, IAS
District Officer,
Madhubani
To,
Government Under Secretary
Home Department (Special Branch)
Bihar, Patna.
Madhubani, Date- 23/03/2023
Subject:- WP(C) No.- 15038/2021 Mrs. Mridula Devi, husband late Samanand Singh, village P.O. In relation to Police Station-Lucknow, District-Madhubani vs. Government of India and others.
Context:- Your letter No.- N/G.V.N.- 27728/16 416 dated 28.09.2022
Sir
In relation to the above subject, a report has been sought from the Officer-in-Charge, District Archives Branch, Madhubani and a clear factual report related to the points mentioned/ marked in paragraph 2 of the letter in question has been made from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhanjharpur.
It has been proved by the letter no. 13, dated 06.02.2023, of the Officer-in-charge, District Archives Branch, Madhubani, that the coloured photocopy of the referred record was sent in the same form in which it is preserved in the District Archives. Since the record is very old, it does not seem appropriate to make any kind of comment regarding the petitioned report and again, the section-wise report related to the points mentioned in para 2 of your relevant letter has been sent by Sub-Divisional Officer Jhanjharpur’s letter no. 319, dated 23.02.2023. Received, regarding the point of investigation mentioned on Serial No.-01, it is to be clarified that the copy of the correspondence from the year 1981 to 2004 is not available in the office,
because the District General Branch was also completely affected in the fire
incident in the year 2012. This happened, as a result of which, along with other important documents, the file and other documents of the said period have also been destroyed.
It is also to be mentioned that after perusing the G.R. register available in the District Archives Madhubani, it was found that in the column No.10 related to GR No. 572/42, Serial No. 01 to 26, total 26 No. Absconders and Column No. 14 Remarks in Column In the meanwhile, The country became independent and a circular was issued by India Govt. to state Govt. to withdraw The Political Cases Pending in The respected courts and accordingly political cases were withdrawn and a list of Those cases were sent to Bihar Govt. vide letter No.4395 dt.- 17/06/1947.
Therefore, letter no. 13 of the Officer-in-Charge, District Archives Branch, Madhubani. Dated 06.02.2023 and Sub-Divisional Officer Jhanjharpur’s letter no. 319, dated 23.02.2023 along with evidence and a coloured photocopy of the said page of the original G.R. Register are attached with this letter and sent for further action.
Annexure-As required.
Division of confidence
District Officer,
Madhubani.
Date: 23.03.2023
14. The report from the District Officer of Madhubani serves as a critical piece of evidence supporting the Petitioners claim. It confirms that the GR Register in the District Archives of Madhubani, Column No. 10, which pertains to GR Case No. 572/1942, aligns with the details mentioned in the certified copy of the GR No. 572/1942, provided by the Petitioner.
15. Additionally, Annexure-R5 annexed with the reply affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. R-4 further strengthens Petitioners claim. Annexure R-5 is a list of Records sent to district record room. The same is reproduced herein below:
The afore-noted communications and the records in the District Record Room (GR Register) corroborates the accuracy of GR Case No. 572/1942, establishing a direct link to the Petitioners late husbands activities during the freedom struggle. Therefore, the Petitioner has successfully met the requirement of furnishing primary evidence.
16. Further, the communication dated 16th March, 1985 by Respondent No.4 to Respondent No.3 also authenticates the certified copy relied on by the Petitioner to prove late Mr. Ramanand Singhs eligibility for the SSSP Pension. The translated copy of the said communication reads as under:
Letter no 914
Bihar Govt,
Home Special
(SSS Pension scheme)
Freedom and Fighter
Old Secretariat Barrack No.7
Patna-8000151
To
Sh. K.N. Singh
Under Secretary
Home Ministry, Freedom Fighter Section
Lok Nayak Bhawan,
New Delhi
Patna dated 16.03.1985
Sub: Sanction for SSS Pension from, Central Revenue to freedom fighter under 1980.
Sh. Rama Nand Singh·
S/o Sh. Lal Bahadur Singh
R/o Village Lakhnaur PO Madhepur,
District Madhubani (Bihar)
Present Address: Jhanjharpur
In the matter of application dated 31.03.82 registration No.27728.
Sir,
As per directions enclosing the one set the original application of Ramanand Singh.
Enclosed photo state copy of G.R. record and regarding the absconder certificate from Sheetal Prasad Singh the Estate Advisory Committee on 11.02.1984 after due verification of court judicial record from D. M. Madhubani, it has recommended and sent to you.
On the application of Rama Nand Singh the State Advisory Committee has recommended the application of Rama Nand Singh for grant of SSS pension.
The Photocopy of details chart of State Advisory Committee and court record, verification report from D.M. Madhubani are enclosed and the Government of India kindly be take the decision and also be communicated to State Government.
Yours faithfully.
Sd/-
Saryu Prasad Singh
Director
The aforenoted communication clearly states that late Mr. Ramanand Singhs application was being recommended after due verification of court judicial record from D.M. Mahubani. This recommendation was based on a thorough review and verification of the necessary records by the State Advisory Committee and the District Magistrate of Madhubani. Thus, the endorsement by the State of Bihar on 16th March, 1985, substantiates Petitioners claim.
17. The Petitioner holds a certified copy of GR Case No. 572/1942, which has been issued as per rules, as an authentic copy of the Court record. Its important to note that court records, particularly the orders are always retained by the issuing courts and are not provided to parties; instead, parties are given certified copies for legal use. Under Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, these certified copies are presumed to be genuine if they conform to the prescribed statutory requirements. The Petitioner has submitted this certified copy to Respondent No. 3, fulfilling the criteria for primary evidence. Furthermore, while the State Government of Bihar has not explicitly authenticated this document, the verification process it undertook, as detailed in their correspondence, supports the reliability of the document. In these circumstances, the absence of explicit authentication from the State of Bihar does not detract from the validity of the certified copy, especially when combined with other corroborative evidence provided by the Petitioner.
18. Consequently, based on the totality of the evidence presented, including the certified copy of the GR Case No. 572/1942, the endorsements by the State of Bihar, and the legal admissibility of such documents under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 this Court finds that the Petitioner has substantiated her claim in accordance with the eligibility criteria stipulated by the SSSP Scheme. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh V Union of India and Ors,7 which elucidates the standard of proof that the Respondents are required to apply in cases such as the present one. The test required to applied is the standard of proof of preponderance of probability, and not on the touchstone of beyond reasonable doubt.
19. As the Petitioner has demonstrated her late husbands eligibility under the SSS Pension under the scheme through primary evidence, this court finds no reason to examine the other documents which are relied upon by the Petitioner as secondary evidence.
20. Respondent Nos. 1-3 have also raised concerns regarding the absence of a specified duration for which late Mr. Ramanand Singh was purportedly underground, arguing that the SSSP Scheme requires a minimum of six months underground for eligibility. They also argue that Annexure P2, the document submitted as proof, does not explicitly mention the period Mr. Singh was underground, thereby casting doubt on his entitlement to the SSS Pension.
21. In the Courts opinion the circumstances described in Annexure P2 provide compelling evidence supporting the duration of Mr. Singhs underground status. According to the Petitioner, after unsuccessful attempts to arrest Mr. Singh, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) issued a proclamation on 12th March, 1945, followed by an order to attach his property. On 28th May, 1945, Mr. Singh and several associates were declared Proclaimed Offenders (PO) under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908, in connection with this case. He remained in hiding until December 1946. This timeline clearly exceeds the six-month duration stipulated by the SSSP Scheme. The issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,19088 and the declaration of an individual as a proclaimed offender under Section 83 of the CrPC are significant. These provisions are invoked when there is credible belief that the person has absconded or concealed themselves to evade arrest or execution of a warrant, especially in connection with serious offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The period from the initial proclamation to the point where Mr. Singh was declared a proclaimed offender, and his continued absence until December 1946, collectively substantiate that he was compelled to remain underground to avoid persecution or arrest. This prolonged period of absconding fulfils the criteria for underground suffering as required under the SSSP Scheme.
22. In light of the evidence shown to the Court and the evaluation criteria to be applied in such cases, Smt. Mriduli Devi, is held entitled to the benefits of the SSSP Scheme with respect to her late husband, Shri Ramanand Singh, effective from the date of his initial application until the date of his death as per clause 1.4 of the revised policy guidelines. Furthermore, considering the delays in processing and recognizing the claim, interest should be awarded on the accumulated pension amount. The rate of interest should be equitable and compensatory, reflecting a balance between the time value of money and the delay encountered by the Petitioner. Keeping in mind the principles of fairness and the precedents set by this Court in similar pension-related matters, the rate of interest is fixed at 6 % of the annual pension amount.9
23. As regards Petitioners own entitlement for pension following her husbands demise, the Court is not convinced. Paragraph 1.5 of the Revised Policy Guidelines, stipulates that no pension shall be sanctioned posthumously in the name of a deceased freedom fighter, nor shall any lifetime arrears or dependent pension be granted to his or her spouse or daughter subsequent to the freedom fighters death. Specifically, the clause states:
no pension shall be sanctioned in the name of the freedom fighter after his/her death even if his/her matter was under examination this also entails that no life time arrears or dependent pension shall be sanctioned to his/her spouse/daughter after the death of the freedom fighter
24. As per the revised guidelines, no pension can be sanctioned in the name of the freedom fighter after his or her death. Accordingly, no pension can be granted to his or her spouse after the death of the freedom fighter. In the instant case, late Mr. Ramanand Singh expired on 30th January, 2011, and therefore, the arrears of pension shall be awarded to the Petitioner only up to the date of his death and the Petitioner shall not be independently eligible for grant of SSSP Scheme in terms of the afore-noted clause.
25. The present petition is accordingly allowed with the following directions:
(a) Order dated 4th November, 2022 passed by Respondent No.3 rejecting the Petitioners claim for pension under the SSSP scheme is set aside.
(b) Respondents No.1-3 are directed to release the Pension of late Mr. Ramanand Singh to the Petitioner, calculated from 25th December 198110 to 30th January, 2011,11 within 4 weeks from today, along with simple interest @6% per annum calculated from 25th December 1981 till the date of payment of the pension amount.
26. Disposed of, along with pending applications.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
AUGUST 06, 2024
sapna
1 Constitution
2 SSS Pension
3 SSSP Scheme
4 PKC
5 Annexure-A of the SSSP Scheme titled Eligibility Conditions and Evidentiary Requirements for Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. Hereinafter referred to as Eligibility and Evidentiary Requirements
6 Sub-clause (a) of clause 2.2 of the Eligibility Conditions and Evidentiary Requirements for Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980
7 (2001) 8 SCC 8
8 CrPC
9 Uttim Lal Singh V UOI and Ors, 2023:DHC:0017; See also: Radha Krishan V Union of India, 2015:DHC:1762.
10 Date of application under the SSSP Scheme
11 Date of demise of late Mr. Ramanand Singh.
—————
————————————————————
—————
————————————————————
W.P.(C) 15038/2021 Page 2 of 2