Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a direction to grant central freedom-fighter pension that the High Court had issued without notice or an opportunity for the Union to file a counter-affidavit. An earlier rejection had become final, and the renewed claim raised factual and documentary questions requiring assessment under the scheme. State pension did not itself establish eligibility for central pension. The Union’s appeal was allowed and the writ petition dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could direct pension under the central scheme without hearing the Union or leaving disputed eligibility and proof to the competent authority.
Held
- The earlier rejection had not been challenged, and the renewed application gave differing particulars. The High Court should not have granted pension without allowing the Union to answer the claim and explain the evidentiary deficiencies. (¶¶ 23-26, 28-29)
- Eligibility and sufficiency of the prescribed documentary proof were for the competent authority to assess under the scheme. Judicial review did not justify an advance direction granting pension on the disputed record. (¶ 25-27)
- Receipt of pension under a State scheme did not confer entitlement under the separate central scheme. Each claim depended on its facts and the evidence required by the applicable scheme. (¶ 30-31)
Result
Union’s appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and the writ petition dismissed without costs.