Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)

Union Of India & Anr vs Kaushalaya Devi on 15 February, 2007

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner points out to me the judgment in Kaushalaya Devi's case (supra) makes a distinction between a situation where the claim was not granted on the basis that the jail certificate but on the oral statement of some other detenue then it should be taken as a circumstance indicating a benefit of doubt in which case, the pension would be granted from the date of the order. In this case, the benefit of doubt was not on the issue of imprisonment at all. The doubt which the Union had raised was with reference to the age which had been observed in the order of this Court as a false bogey for a rejection of the claim. The reasoning adopted in the order passed by this Court would reveal that there was no doubt regarding his status as a freedom fighter which was borne out clearly through the jail record that gave the details of imprisonment, the name of the person and the identity of the person with reference to father's name as well. The Union was taking up a contention that age certificate was not there and therefore the identity was not clearly established. This cannot be taken to be really a benefit of doubt which was to be CM No. 3580-CWP of 2014 in 4 CM No. 659 of 2014 in CWP No. 18124 of 2011 apprised requiring the forensic skills of Court's endeavour. It was simply a case of the Union's show of apathy which this Court has found fault with and has allowed the petition. I will see the circumstance emanating in this case ought not to be taken as a claim which was allowed by the Court on the basis of giving a benefit of doubt. On the other hand, I have held in the order that there existed no doubt at all and the Union's stand was not correct. I therefore hold that the order which did not spell out clearly from which date the pension must be reckoned requires to be clarified and I do so here through this order directing that the reckoning shall be done from the date of the applicant providing proof of imprisonment through the Jail certificate. The date of receipt of the Jail certificate in the office of the Union shall therefore be the date from when the reckoning must be done.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 44 - M Katju - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Kashiswar Jana on 31 March, 2008

3. Both sides rely on the same authorities holding on the issue of commencement of period from which the calculation ought to be made. They lay down that if the High Court passes the order specifying a particular date from when it should commence that itself will govern the issue. In other cases it should be understood where there existed a doubt regarding the pensioner's entitlement and the benefit of doubt is given to the status of the person as a freedom fighter then it should be only from the date of the order of the High Court. Three decisions have been cited by the CM No. 3580-CWP of 2014 in 3 CM No. 659 of 2014 in CWP No. 18124 of 2011 counsel for the Union namely Union of India and another Vs. Kaushalaya Devi (2007) 9 SCC 525, Union of India and others Vs. Kashiswar Jana (2008) 11 SCC 309 and Government of India Vs. K. V. Swaminathan (1997) 10 SCC 190 that bring out this aspect of how when there exists a doubt regarding the status of a person as a freedom fighter and the Court makes an adjudication uphold the status and consequently the entitlement, it shall be only from the date of the order of the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 11 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Government Of India Represented Bythe ... vs K.V. Swaminathan on 18 November, 1996

3. Both sides rely on the same authorities holding on the issue of commencement of period from which the calculation ought to be made. They lay down that if the High Court passes the order specifying a particular date from when it should commence that itself will govern the issue. In other cases it should be understood where there existed a doubt regarding the pensioner's entitlement and the benefit of doubt is given to the status of the person as a freedom fighter then it should be only from the date of the order of the High Court. Three decisions have been cited by the CM No. 3580-CWP of 2014 in 3 CM No. 659 of 2014 in CWP No. 18124 of 2011 counsel for the Union namely Union of India and another Vs. Kaushalaya Devi (2007) 9 SCC 525, Union of India and others Vs. Kashiswar Jana (2008) 11 SCC 309 and Government of India Vs. K. V. Swaminathan (1997) 10 SCC 190 that bring out this aspect of how when there exists a doubt regarding the status of a person as a freedom fighter and the Court makes an adjudication uphold the status and consequently the entitlement, it shall be only from the date of the order of the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 36 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1