"Some heroes go unsung:" Supreme Court on denial of pension to former spy who was captured, imprisoned in Pakistan

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Central government to consider the request for pensionary benefits raised by a former post office employee who was sent to Pakistan for covert operations but was captured and incarcerated there for many years [Mahmood Ansari vs Union of India]..A Bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia asked the counsel for the Central government to take instructions after noting that the petitioner's employer had deemed the period away from work as wilful absence."Some heroes go unsung," the Court remarked while posting the matter for hearing next on August 3..The plea by Mahmood Ansari, filed through advocate Samar Vijay Singh, said that the petitioner was sent to Pakistan thrice for operations by the Jaipur branch of the Special Bureau of Investigation, Government of India. While he was successful on the first two occasions, he was caught by authorities the third time, in the year 1976. He was then tried in a military court in Multan and convicted for offences punishable under the Official Secrets Act of 1923. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison in 1978, and was tortured while incarcerated at the New Central Jail, Bahawalpur. Eventually, the Bahawalpur Bench of the Lahore High Court in an order passed in September 1987 ordered that he would be released in November that year. He was finally out of Pakistan in the year 1989.He had, during his time in jail in the year 1980, written to the post office back in India saying his period away from work was beyond his control. That same year, however, he was dismissed from service by an ex-parte order.Multiple representations seeking his release and reinstatement were sent at the time, while still in prison. These included those to police authorities, the then Union Home Home Minister and Rajasthan Chief Minister about his plight, but to no avail. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at Jaipur decided on his application, originally filed in 1980, in the year 2000. The CAT dismissed the same after stating that it could only adjudicate on issues that arose from three years prior to it being constituted. A review application against the said order was also dismissed. He then moved the High Court in 2003 but withdrew his plea after he was granted liberty to file a fresh representation before the concerned authority. This was followed by another unsuccessful round of litigation before the CAT and the High Court. The CAT in in 2007 said his application was not maintainable, after which he moved the High Court in 2008. In 2017, the High Court dismissed his plea challenge of the 2007 CAT order, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The petitioner contended that he was not given a chance to explain the reason for his absence as no copy of the dismissal order and its proceedings were served. Further, it was contended that the postal department was aware of the reasons for his absence but the same was not considered by different fora in their decisions.