Freedom Fighter Pension Cannot Be Denied to Widowed Daughter Merely Because Father Never Applied Under Central Scheme During His Lifetime: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: Union of India v. Smt. Kamlesh and Another
Date of Judgment: 15 October 2026
Citation: LPA-1560-2019
Bench: Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Rajesh Gaur
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a widowed daughter’s claim for dependent pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, cannot be rejected merely because her freedom fighter father had neither applied for nor received pension under the Central Government Scheme during his lifetime. The Court emphasised that beneficial schemes must be interpreted consistently with their underlying purpose, and genuine claims supported by documentary evidence should not be defeated by technical objections that do not go to the root of entitlement.
Summary: The Union of India challenged a Single Judge’s order directing the release of admissible pensionary benefits to the widowed daughter of a deceased freedom fighter.
The appellant contended that the claimant’s father, Shri Data Ram, had never applied for pension under the Central Government Scheme during his lifetime. Consequently, his daughter was allegedly ineligible for dependent pension under Clause 1.5 of the revised policy guidelines dated 6 August 2014.
The Division Bench noted that the claimant’s father had participated in the freedom struggle as a member of the Indian National Army (INA) and had been officially recognised as a freedom fighter by the State Government, which sanctioned financial assistance to him in 1981. Following his death, his widow continued receiving the benefit until her demise.
Referring to Khajani Devi v. Union of India, the Court observed that the State Government’s recognition and supporting documentary evidence could not be disregarded solely because pension had not previously been sanctioned under the Central Scheme.
The Court further held that Clause 1.5 of the revised guidelines could not be interpreted in isolation from the Scheme’s beneficial object. The Union of India had failed to establish that the provision imposed an absolute bar on consideration of the claimant’s entitlement.
Decision: The Division Bench dismissed the Union of India’s appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s judgment, directing the release of admissible pensionary benefits to the widowed daughter in accordance with law.