Certificates which are acted upon while granting State freedom fighter pension by State can’t be doubted by Central Govt.by taking hypertechnical view: P&H HC while granting pension to wife of deceased freedom fighter

Read Order: Vidya Devi v. Union of India 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 17,  2022: While dealing with a petition filed by the wife of a deceased freedom fighter, who was not granted dependent family pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the grant of pension by the State Government is a relevant factor to be considered for accepting the genuineness of the certificates which are acted upon while granting State freedom fighter pension by the State of Punjab in favour of the petitioner.

The bench of Justice Raj Mohan Singh further said,“In the present case, petitioner is dependant of freedom fighter, who has been made to suffer on account of hypertechnical objection.”

The petitioner preferred the instant writ petition for the grant of dependent family pension to her under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (Scheme), on account of her husband’s death who was a freedom fighter and was drawing freedom fighter pension under the Scheme. He was also drawing such pension from the State of Punjab. 

The State of Punjab had already sanctioned the freedom fighter pension to the petitioner. She also applied for the grant of such pension under the Scheme by submitting her application in the prescribed form along with a copy of the death certificate of her husband, pensioner’s portion of PPO in original and certificate regarding the marital status of the petitioner. 

After several letters were written back and forth between the petitioner and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA), two legal notices were sent by the petitioner against the inaction of the respondents. After the second notice, the MoHA informed the petitioner that the original copy of both portions of PPO i.e. disburser portion and pensioner’s portion along with the sanction letter which was issued in petitioner’s husband’s name at the time of sanctioning SSS Pension were mandatory for considering the dependents under the SSS Yojana. 

The petitioner’s counsel asserted that the petitioner was unnecessarily harassed even after she sent the pensioner’s portion of PPO in original along with her application sent in a prescribed format. It was also argued that such sending of the PPO was duly acknowledged by the respondents. It was further argued that there was no reference to the PPO by the respondents in any of their earlier communications.  

On the contrary, the respondents’ counsel submitted that the original PPO was not received by the respondents and in the absence thereof, further action could not be taken. 

The Court observed that the respondents made a mention of the requirement of the pensioner’s portion of PPO for the first time in its communication sent in response to the petitioner’s second legal notice. The Court also noted that it was observed by the MoHA that the sanction letter issued in favour of the deceased was not received from the petitioner so far and the PPO related to her husband was referred by the Ministry to the Accountant General (A&E) Punjab and Chandigarh UT at Chandigarh for its verification.

When the counsel for the third respondent submitted that the PPO of the deceased was verified and the same was found to the genuine, the first two respondents gave their nod for sanction of the pension in question, however, it was stated that the same would be subject to the approval by the Pay & Accounts Office, MoHA. 

The Court also observed that it was established on record that after receipt of pensioner’s portion of PPO, the same was not traceable in the office or must have been lost in the office of the concerned quarter and that no DDR was lodged by respondents regarding such non-availability of pensioner’s portion of PPO which was duly submitted by the petitioner. 

To meet the gap created by misplacing of the PPO, the Court observed that in case, where only the Disburser’s portion is lost and the pensioner’s portion is available, then, after the completion of the formalities mentioned in the guidelines for disbursement of Central Samman Pensions, the PAO may simply put a stamp of duplicate PPO on the pensioner’s portion of the PPO and the same shall be treated as a duplicate PPO and Bank may retain it as a Disburser Portion, subject to the payment penalty amount to the Pay and Accounts Office, by the Bank, as required under the aforesaid guidelines. 

“Similar process may be adopted for issuance of duplicate PPO where disburser portion is available but the pensioner’s portion is lost subject to the payment of penalty”, said the Bench. 

While reinstating that the petitioner was drawing pension from the Government of Punjab, the Court said, “Grant of pension by the State Government is a relevant factor to be considered for accepting the genuineness of the certificates which are acted upon while granting State freedom fighter pension by the State of Punjab in favour of the petitioner. Those very certificates cannot be rejected, doubted or objected to by the Central Government by taking hypertechnical view.”

Thus, the respondents were obligated to do the needful for sanctioning the dependent freedom fighter pension to the petitioner forthwith after getting the same approved from the Pay & Accounts Office of the MoHA.