Orissa High Court: In a civil writ petition challenging the rejection of petitioner’s claim for grant of freedom fighters’ pension, Sashikanta Mishra, J. considering the inability of the petitioner to produce strict evidence in support of his claim, the Court held that the authorities could take a lenient view and held that petitioner’s case for grant of Freedom Fighter’s pension deserved to be accepted. The Court directed the authorities concerned to release the benefits to him preferably within one month of the decision.
Background
The petitioner claimed that he participated in the freedom movement of the country and remained underground during the period from 01-09-1942 to 5-10-1943 and imprisoned in Baripada Central Jail for seven days and again during 1941-42. After independence, the Government of India, to give benefits to the freedom fighters framed a scheme called the Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme, 1972, which provided for grant of pension to those freedom fighters whose annual income did not exceed Rs.5000/-. Subsequently the Swatantra Sainik Samman Scheme, 1980, was formulated and adopted on 01-08-1980. The petitioner along with others was detained and convicted for 7 days under the Forest Laws of Mayurbhanj in Goyal (Gayal-Bison) shooting case at Bangra, and that more than 300 persons were convicted.
Seeking the Freedom Fighters’ Pension benefits, the petitioner submitted an affidavit, however no action was taken. The petitioner again requested the B.D.O of Badasahi Panchayat Samiti to take necessary steps for sanction of pension. The office of the Panchayat Samiti forwarded the application to the Collector, Mayurbhanj for sanction of pension. A newspaper article was also published in 2013 indicating how the petitioner at the age of 87 was harassed by the authorities in getting pension even after 66 years of independence.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted the affidavit sworn by a person who was in receipt of Freedom Fighters’ Pension from the Central Government as well as the Government of Odisha, which showed when the deponent was convicted for 3 years and was lodged in Baripada Central Jail, the petitioner was convicted and detained under police custody for 7 days under Forest Law of Mayurbhanj in Gayal shooting case at Bhangra. The affidavit also stated that the petitioner was a Praja Mandal worker and had worked with the deponent till 1941 and that the petitioner was lodged in the Central Jail of Baripada during 1941- 42 when the deponent was political prisoner.
The Court pointed out that the Scheme requires two co-prisoner’s certificates but in the instant case, the petitioner produced only one. Hence, the Court referred to the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division of Government of India which reveals that the Government acknowledges that the Scheme’s objective to honour genuine freedom fighters without harassment or delay, but efforts have to be made to distinguish between fake and genuine claimants.
The Court also noted that two certificates were issued by two Members of Odisha Legislative Assembly, which supported the petitioner’s claim of being a freedom fighter, but the Court pointed out that said certificates did not fulfill the requirement of the Scheme inasmuch as the Members themselves were not co-prisoners of the petitioner. However, the Court said that being public representatives of the very same area (Mayurbhanj) must at least be held to have knowledge that the petitioner was a freedom fighter and incarcerated in connection therewith.
Considering the situation that 79 years old jail records were difficult to arrange, the Court said that it would be too much to expect the petitioner to produce clear-cut or cogent proof regarding his incarceration in jail nearly 80 years ago. Hence, the Court considered the petitioner’s claim without adopting a strict or technical approach.
The Court stated that the very ideals that inspired the freedom movement have been acknowledged by the Constitution as something to be remembered and cherished by the citizens as a Fundamental Duty. Article of the enjoins upon the “citizens to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom”.
Saying that the action of the authorities must be to further the object of the Scheme and not to frustrate it, the Court said that there is evidence that the petitioner was incarcerated in Baripada Jail in connection with Praja Mandal movement though the exact duration was not forthcoming from the records. The Court also relied on Satrughna Sahoo v. Union of India wherein this Court accepted one co-prisoner certificate as being sufficient proof of the petitioner’s claim.
Thus, taking an overall view of the matter, the Court held that the insistence of the authorities for adducing strict proof of his claim by the petitioner was quite harsh and, in any case, frustrates the very object of the Scheme. Thus, the Court directed the authorities concerned to sanction Freedom Fighters’ pension in favor of the petitioner from the date of his application. Since the petitioner is aged about 100 years, the authorities were directed to pass necessary orders in this regard and ensure that the benefits including the arrears are disbursed to him as early as possible, preferably within one month from the date of decision.
[Chakradhar Pradhan v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 23220 of 2013, decided on: 23-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: C.A. Rao, Senior Advocate; Sarat Kumar Behera & S.K. Parida Advocates.
For Respondents: P.K. Parhi, Deputy Solicitor General of India; S.S.Kashyap, Central Government Counsel; S. Behera, Addl. Government Advocate
Buy Constitution of India
2016 (II) ILR-CUT-1366.
The post appeared first on .