CASE ANALYSIS : SOMITRABAI v. UNION OF INDIA

INTRODUCTION

Pension for the widow of the freedom fighters  plays a crucial role in shaping the life of the widow and their family as pension helps to live a life when there is no other means of earning. The present case was heard before the bench of  Hon’ble Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Hon’ble Justice Y.G. Khobragade who gave justice to the petioner as she filed the writ petition at Bombay High Court . 

FACTS OF THE CASE 

In this case the husband of petioner was a freedom fighter whose name was Bhagwan Sukdev Ajbe and he was receiving freedom fighter’s pension until his death from Government of India and also from the State Government, after his demise his second wife Rukhiminabai was receiving freedom fighter’s pension till her death on 17/06/2018, she was receiving the pension because the freedom fighter had nominated her and declared her as his first wife. The pension was stopped after the death of Rukhminabai.

The petioner submitted the order decided by a civil court 2201,2016 in K.C.S. No. 87 of 2012 and it was held in this order that the petioner , Somitrabai is the first legally wedded wife of the freedom fighter. She gave various applications to the authority for granting  pension but they did not start giving pension to the petioner even after the death of Rukhminibai and the authority gave the reason behind not giving the pension to the petioner that the original PPO is missing.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

Whether the petioner is entitled to receive the freedom fighter,s pension after the death of Rukhminibai ?

Whether the pension can be granted to the petioner without original copy of the PPO with the use of the certified copy of the PPO ?

JUDGEMENT

The court held that Somitrabai is the first legally wedded wife of the deceased freedom fighter as decided by the civil court in 2016. Hence the petioner is entitled for the freedom fighter,s pension.

The District Collector had instructed State Bank Of India for the original PPO but the State bank told the District Collector that the original PPO of the freedom fighter is neither with the bank nor with the Ministry of home affairs and it was submitted through letter dated 19/08/2020.

 The court instructed to send the issue notice to respondent Nos.1 to 5 and held that the respondent must appear in the court on 11/07/2023. The advocate of respondent No.1 which is Union Of India  said that there is no need to send the issue notice because the Union Of India have the knowledge of this case , similarly the A.G.P. also said the same thing for the respondent No. 2 to 5 .

The court gave the next date and strictly instructed the Ministry Of Home Affairs to submit the original PPO to the District Collector so that the pension can be granted to the petioner but in the end the original PPO could not be found.

There is no doubt that the husband of petioner was a freedom fighter and he was receiving freedom fighter’s pension both from the State Government and Central Governement . He was receiving pension from State Government since 07/09/1977 and from Central Government since 04/08/1985. The freedom fighter had sacrificed his life for the Country on 12/06/1993 and after his demised the pension was given to his second wife Rukhminibai whom he nominated and informed the authority that she is her first wife but in reality she was the not the first wife , the first wife of the demised was the petioner who is entitled for the pension.

The court instructed to sanction the pension with the use of the certified copy of the PPO as the original copy could not be found. The defendant was taking the defence by saying that the petition is immature , the court strongly criticized this defence and held that petitioner had filed the petition after giving several applications to the authority from time to time but the authority had not responded in the favour of petitioner.

 In Smt. Kasabai W/o Shamrao Shingare v. UOI it was held that the Central Samman Pension Scheme is a welfare scheme for helping the family of the freedom fighters who sacrificed their life for the Nation. The Ministry have to consider the payment of arrears even if the application is given after six months after the death of the freedom fighter. In the present case the freedom fighter had died on 03/05/2016 and the application was given by the son of freedom fighter within three months after the death of freedom fighter on 26/07/2016. The son of the freedom fighter used to give application from time to time but the ministry held that the application is not in proper format and hence they denied to grant the pension. This behaviour of the ministry was strongly criticized by the court as the petitioner was an old aged illiterate lady and she can survive only with the help of pension.

The court instructed the ministry to pay pension arrears from 17/06/2018 to 31/08/2023 within three months. The petioner is the first  legally wedded wife of the freedom fighter and hence the court directed the authority to give regular monthly pension to the petioner from the month of September,2023.

REASONING

Writ of Mandamus is considered when authorities violate the legal rights of others.

The petioner is the first legally wedded wife of the deceased freedom fighter and it was decided in the case of Kamalbai v. State of Maharashtra that second marriage is considered void in the existance of first marriage and hence Rukhminibai is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased freedom fighter and hence Somitrabai is the first legally wedded wife of the deceased freedom fighter as decided by the civil court and she is entitled for the freedom fighter’s pension.

In Kasabai v UOI pension schemes were interpreted for the widows of freedom fighters.

CONCLUSION

In this case of Somitrabai v. UOI , the right of the petioner was violated as the ministry denied to grant pension to the petioner who was legally entitled as she was the first legally wedded wife of the late freedom fighter and hence the judiciary safeguarded the right of the petioner by instructing the authority to grant pension to the petioner.

REFERENCES 

SCC Online 

Written and submitted by Azima Fatma an intern under legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.