Supreme Court Upholds Cut-off Date for Freedom Fighter Pension: Government of India vs. Sitakant S. Dubhashi (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 11 February 2020
Citation: Civil Appeal No.987 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 27297 of 2017)
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and Navin Sinha, J.

Can the government set a specific date to determine who qualifies for a freedom fighter pension, or should all eligible participants receive benefits regardless of when their state pension was approved? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (SSSP Scheme) and its application to participants in the Goa Liberation Movement. The core issue was whether a cut-off date of August 1, 2002, for receiving a state pension was a valid condition for eligibility for the central SSSP Scheme. The judgment was authored by Ashok Bhushan, J., with a bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan, J. and Navin Sinha, J.

Case Background

The case revolves around Mr. Sitakant S. Dubhashi, who participated in the Goa Liberation Movement. The Government of India introduced the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme in 1972, later renamed the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (SSSP Scheme). Initially, the scheme required a minimum imprisonment of six months for eligibility. The government extended the SSSP Scheme to participants of the Goa Liberation Movement who met the eligibility criteria.

Mr. Dubhashi applied for the SSSP Scheme on March 19, 1982. His application was rejected in 1985 because the State of Goa did not recommend it. Later, the Government of India decided to grant freedom fighter pensions to participants of the Goa Liberation Movement Phase-II (1954-55) under the SSSP Scheme, 1980, through a Government Order dated February 17, 2003.

Separately, the State of Goa had its own pension rules, initially framed in 1973 and later superseded by the Goa Freedom Fighter’s Welfare Rules, 1988. Mr. Dubhashi applied for a state pension on July 28, 2001. The Goa government rejected his application on December 18, 2002, based on a police report stating his name was not in the freedom fighters’ register.

Mr. Dubhashi then applied for a central pension under the SSSP Scheme on April 15, 2003. The State of Goa informed him on February 13, 2004, that his case was not approved. However, the state reconsidered his application and, on December 26, 2007, approved his name for a state pension. A pension payment order was issued on March 11, 2008, effective from December 1, 2007.

Following the grant of his state pension, Mr. Dubhashi requested the central government for an SSSP pension on August 6, 2009. The central government rejected his claim on November 16, 2009, stating that he was ineligible because he received his state pension after August 1, 2002, which was the cut-off date for eligibility under the relaxed criteria for the Goa Liberation Movement Phase-II. A similar communication was sent on November 13, 2014, after another representation.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Mr. Dubhashi filed a writ petition (No. 229 of 2016) in the High Court of Bombay at Goa, challenging the central government’s notification dated February 17, 2003, and the rejection orders dated November 16, 2009, and November 13, 2014. He sought a declaration that the cut-off date of August 1, 2002, was arbitrary and that all freedom fighters recognized by the Goa government should be entitled to the central pension regardless of the date of their state pension.

The High Court, noting that the central government did not file a reply or specifically deny Mr. Dubhashi’s claims, allowed the writ petition. The High Court directed the central government to grant Mr. Dubhashi the SSSP pension effective from March 11, 2008. The Government of India then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (SSSP Scheme): This is a central government scheme providing pensions to freedom fighters who meet specific eligibility criteria. Paragraph 3 of the scheme outlines who is eligible, including those who suffered imprisonment, remained underground, or had property confiscated due to their participation in the freedom struggle.

  Paragraph 3 states:
  
  “3. WHO IS ELIGIBLE? For the purpose of grant of Samman pension under the scheme, a freedom fighter is: – (a) A person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the mainland jails before Independence… (b) A person who remained underground for more than six months provided he was: 1. a proclaimed offender; or 2. one on whom an award for arrest/head was announced; or 3. one for whose detention order was issued but not served…”

  Paragraph 4 of the scheme includes movements against the Portuguese in Goa as part of the National Freedom Struggle.
  
  “4. Apart from the mainstream of the liberation struggle the movements/mutinies which were directed against the British (French in case of Pondicherry and Portuguese in case of Goa) with freedom of the country as its ultimate goal are also treated as part of National Freedom Struggle for the purpose of grant of pension…”

• Goa Freedom Fighter’s Welfare Rules, 1988: These rules define “freedom fighter” and outline eligibility for state pensions in Goa. Rule 2(I) defines a “Freedom Fighter” as someone who suffered due to participation in the National Liberation Movement or liberation of Goa.

  Rule 2(I) states:
  
  “2(I). “Freedom Fighter” means any person who on account of participation in National Liberation Movement or liberation of Goa, had undergone the sufferings listed below: (a) He/she had been sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 15 days: or (b) He/she was had suffered imprisonment for not less than 15 days (including detention as under trial prisoner; or as prisoner in police custody for interrogation)…”

• Government Order dated 17.02.2003: This order extended the SSSP Scheme to participants of the Goa Liberation Movement Phase-II (1954-55), relaxing the original eligibility criteria but with a condition that they must have been granted a state pension by August 1, 2002.

  Paragraph 1 of the scheme states:
  
  “1. I am directed to refer to this Ministry’s letter of even number dated 16th/19th August, 2002 on the above subject and to inform you that it has now been decided to grant central pension to the participants of 2nd Phase of Goa Liberation movement (1954 -55) who have been granted freedom fighters pension by the State Government by 1st August, 2002, by relaxing the eligibility criteria under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.”

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Government of India):

• The SSSP scheme was extended to participants of the Goa Liberation Movement, Phase-II, with the specific condition that only those who were receiving a State Pension by 01.08.2002 would be eligible.
• The cut-off date of 01.08.2002 was consciously included in the scheme after deliberation, as evidenced by relevant notes brought on record.
• Mr. Dubhashi was granted a State Pension on 11.03.2008 and did not fulfill the eligibility criteria of the scheme introduced by the Government Order dated 17.02.2003.
• The High Court erred in holding that the cut-off date of 01.08.2002 had no relevance and in allowing the writ petition of Mr. Dubhashi.

Arguments by the Respondent No. 1 (Sitakant S. Dubhashi):

• Mr. Dubhashi was issued an Identity Card of a freedom fighter in 1984 and had applied for a State Pension on 28.07.2001. Although this was rejected in December 2002, the State itself granted him a pension w.e.f. 01.12.2007, making him eligible for the SSSP Pension.
• There is no rationale for fixing a cut-off date of 01.08.2002 for granting SSSP Pension to participants of the Goa Liberation Movement, Phase-II. There is no nexus between the cut-off date and the object sought to be achieved.
• All freedom fighters who receive a State Pension are eligible for the SSSP Scheme.

Arguments by the Respondent No. 2 (State of Goa):

• The State of Goa submitted that Mr. Dubhashi’s claim for State Pension was rejected in December 2002 after due inquiry.
• The State also produced original records pertaining to Mr. Dubhashi’s claim, including his 2001 application, the reports obtained, and the decision rejecting his claim.
• The records also contained Mr. Dubhashi’s subsequent application after the State Pension Scheme was reopened in 2003, and the approval of his pension along with twenty-one other freedom fighters w.e.f. 01.12.2007.

Submissions Categorized by Main Arguments:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether Mr. Dubhashi was entitled to the SSSP pension as per the scheme dated 17.02.2003 of the Government of India.
2. Whether the High Court had taken the correct decision in allowing Mr. Dubhashi’s writ petition.
3. Whether the cut-off date fixed in the Government Order dated 17.02.2003, requiring the applicant to be in receipt of a State Pension by 01.08.2002, is a valid condition.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Goa Freedom Fighter’s Welfare Rules, 1988 were used to understand the eligibility criteria for state pension, which was different from the central scheme.
• The Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 was analyzed to understand the original eligibility criteria and how it was extended to the Goa Liberation Movement.
• The Government Order dated 17.02.2003 was examined to understand the cut-off date and the conditions for extending the central pension scheme to the Goa Liberation Movement.
• The judgment in Mukund Lal Bhandari and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, (1993) supp. 3 SCC 2 was distinguished, stating that while the date for making an application may not be a rigid rule, the present case involves a cut-off date for eligibility under a scheme.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Deliberate Decision on Cut-off Date: The Court emphasized that the cut-off date of 01.08.2002 was not arbitrary but was a result of deliberate consideration by the government. The notes of the meeting held on 02.08.2002, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, indicated that the date was fixed to manage the number of eligible applicants.
• Rationale for Relaxation: The Court acknowledged that the SSSP Scheme was extended to participants of the Goa Liberation Movement, Phase-II, by relaxing the original eligibility criteria. However, this relaxation came with a specific condition: the applicant must have been receiving a state pension by 01.08.2002.
• Distinction between State and Central Schemes: The Court highlighted that the eligibility criteria for the State pension under the Goa Rules were different from the eligibility criteria for the central SSSP Scheme. The mere fact that a person was eligible for a state pension did not automatically make them eligible for the central scheme.
• Rejection of Open-Ended Scheme: The Court noted that the government did not intend to create an open-ended scheme. The relaxation was granted to a specific category of persons who were in receipt of a State pension by the cut-off date.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations than factual aspects.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments for and against the cut-off date, but ultimately upheld it because it was a deliberate decision with a rationale. The Court also emphasized that the SSSP Scheme was not intended to be an open-ended scheme, and the relaxation was granted to a specific category of persons.

The Court rejected the argument that all freedom fighters receiving a state pension should be eligible for the central scheme, stating that the eligibility criteria for the two schemes were different. The Court also distinguished the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari, noting that it was about the date of application and not a cut-off date for eligibility.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The eligibility under the SSSP Scheme, 1980 is, thus, entirely different from the eligibilities for grant of pension under the Goa Rules, 1973 and 1988.”

“When a benefit is granted in relaxation of Scheme, it is open for the Government to put conditions for eligibility.”

“The object under SSSP Scheme, 1980 was always and still is to grant Freedom Fighters pension to those who fulfil the eligibility of SSSP Scheme, 1980.”

Key Takeaways

• Cut-off Dates are Valid: The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of cut-off dates in government schemes, provided they are based on a rational basis and are not arbitrary.
• Eligibility Criteria: Eligibility for a central government scheme is not automatically determined by eligibility for a state government scheme. The eligibility criteria for each scheme must be independently met.
• Relaxation of Schemes: When a government relaxes the eligibility criteria for a scheme, it is allowed to impose conditions, including cut-off dates, for the relaxed criteria.
• Burden of Proof: It is important for the parties to present all relevant material before the court, and the court will consider the material placed on record to make its decision.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not provide any specific directions in this judgment. The Court allowed the appeal of the Government of India and dismissed the writ petition of Mr. Dubhashi.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a cut-off date for eligibility under a government scheme is valid if it is based on a rational basis and not arbitrary. The court held that the cut-off date of 01.08.2002 for the extension of the SSSP scheme to participants of the Goa Liberation Movement, Phase-II, was valid because it was a result of deliberate consideration by the government. This judgment clarifies that the eligibility criteria for central and state schemes are different and that relaxation of a scheme can come with specific conditions, including cut-off dates. There is no change in the previous position of law but rather a clarification on the application of the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the Government of India, setting aside the High Court’s order. The Court held that the cut-off date of August 1, 2002, for eligibility under the SSSP Scheme for participants of the Goa Liberation Movement was valid and not arbitrary. The Court emphasized that Mr. Dubhashi did not meet the eligibility criteria as he received his state pension after the cut-off date. This judgment reinforces the principle that government schemes can have cut-off dates for eligibility, provided they are not arbitrary and have a rational basis.