In Brief
A widow of a deceased freedom fighter claimed dependent family pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, alleging her husband remained underground for over two years during India's independence struggle. The Central Government rejected the claim, finding the deceased did not meet eligibility criteria: he served only thirteen days in jail and provided no documentary evidence of underground suffering exceeding six months. The Supreme Court upheld the rejection, holding the Scheme is document-based requiring specific proof (official proclamations, detention orders, or certified NARC). Being absconding is not equivalent to being 'underground' under the Scheme. Though courts must adopt a rational, beneficial approach to freedom fighter claims, they cannot substitute judgment for the Government's document verification function.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.