Union of India And Ors vs Sita Devi And Ors

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the petitioners and Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, learned counsel for the

opposite party no. 1.

The petitioners have moved the Court seeking review of the judgment dated 10.04.2017 passed in CWJC No. 576 of 2016 by which mandamus has

been issued for grant of Freedom Fighter Pension in favour of the original writ petitioner namely Manager Yadav.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ petition was heard and judgment reserved on 10.02.2017 and the judgment was delivered

on 10.04.2017, but during the period the petitioner Manager Yadav passed away on 28.02.2017. Learned counsel submitted that such fact not having

been brought to the notice of the Court and there being no substitution of his heir(s), the judgment passed in favour of a dead person cannot be

implemented or enforced. It was submitted that the heir(s) of Manager Yadav were required to move an application bringing such fact to the notice of

the Court soon after the death of the writ petitioner or even at the time when the judgment was being pronounced so that the Court could have

appropriately considered and dealt with the matter and passed orders accordingly. It was submitted that even on the date of judgment, such fact was

not brought to the notice of the Court which finally delivered the judgment on 10.04.2017.

Learned counsel submitted that the matter of grant of Central Samman Pension under the Scheme was essentially a token of honour by a grateful

nation to the Freedom Fighters and their dependents. Learned counsel submitted that revised guidelines of the Scheme of 1969 were issued on

06.08.2014 in which it is provided at Clause 1.5 that there shall not be any sanction of such pension in the name of the freedom fighter after his/her

death even if his/her matter was under examination which entailed no life time arrears or dependent pension. Learned counsel submitted that the

matter being governed totally by the Scheme of the Central Government, the Court would consider the spirit behind the Scheme which was to honour

the Freedom Fighter and after honouring him, if he had dependents, the same were also to be granted dependent pension but the Scheme always

envisaged that if a Freedom Fighter dies prior to such sanction, no such sanction would be granted either with regard to arrears or dependent pension.

Learned counsel submitted that though due to inadvertence, the Scheme could not be brought on record before the Court, but the same should not be

held against the petitioners for the reason that it is an admitted position that fresh guidelines had already been issued much prior to even the filing of

the writ petition in the year 2016 and this was the only guidelines which were relevant for consideration by the Court.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 submitted that once at the time of passing of the order the person was alive, subsequent death would

not change the position, and if a mandamus is issued by the Court, the same has to be duly complied with by the authorities. However, on a direct

query of the Court at this junction that if strictly the order has to be implemented then the mandamus having been issued for sanction of pension in the

name of Manager Yadav, how such order can be implemented in favour of any other person when Manager Yadav is dead, learned counsel was not

in a position to counter the same.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the Policy

Guidelines dated 06.08.2014 being the only document on which the claim of the writ petitioner was based and which was required to be considered,

not having been brought to the notice of the Court in the earlier proceedings, there being issues which require consideration, the matter has to be re-

heard on merits. Though learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 has tried to address the Court on merits with regard to the Scheme also but the

Court finds that such has now to be considered afresh after restoring the original writ petition and recalling the mandamus earlier issued.

In view thereof, the application is allowed. The judgment dated 10.04.2017 passed in CWJC No. 576 of 2016 issuing mandamus for grant of

Freedom Fighter Pension to Manager Yadav stands recalled. CWJC No. 576 of 2016 stands restored to its original file and number.

The matter be now placed before the appropriate bench, after obtaining permission of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

As learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 has submitted that now the wife is alive and even she being old in age, the matter requires to be

heard on urgent basis, the Court would only observe that it shall be open to opposite party no. 1 to make a motion before Hon’ble the Chief Justice

for priority/early listing and hearing of the case.