JAGDAMBA DEVI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JAGDAMBA DEVI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

The appellant failed to meet eligibility criteria under the Scheme, as her husband did not have more than six months' jail or underground suffering duly proved by required records or certificates. The mandatory documentary evidence or NARC required for substantiating 'underground' suffering was not produced, and the authorities' decision was within the powers conferred by the Scheme.

Parties
Appellant: Jagdamba Devi; Respondents: Union of India and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment of Supreme Court on Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Freedom Fighter Pension, Dependent Family Benefits, Eligibility Criteria Under Government Scheme
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Welfare Schemes Freedom Fighter Pension Dependent Family Benefits Eligibility Criteria Under Government Scheme

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jagdamba Devi

Appellant

Union of India and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment of Supreme Court on Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is eligible for dependent family pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, based on the 'underground suffering' of her deceased husband

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to meet eligibility criteria under the Scheme, as her husband did not have more than six months' jail or underground suffering duly proved by required records or certificates. The mandatory documentary evidence or NARC required for substantiating 'underground' suffering was not produced, and the authorities' decision was within the powers conferred by the Scheme.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No interference with the impugned order of the High Court; appeal dismissed; no costs.