Orissa HC orders release of arrears of 100-year-old freedom fighter denied pension due to lack of proof of imprisonment

In noticeable order, Orissa High Court came to relief a century-old freedom fighter WHO he was denied pension and other benefits by the State and Union Government in the absence of proof of his imprisonment during the freedom struggle as per existing rules.

Emphasizing the noble objects with which the pension schemes were designed, Justice Sashikanta Mishra by his order is observed –

“…it would be too much to expect the applicant to provide clear or convincing evidence regarding his imprisonment in prison almost 80 years ago. Therefore, it is necessary that the plaintiff’s claim be considered positively without applying a strict or technical approach.”

Background

The applicant claimed that he participated in the liberation movement of the country and remained underground between 01.09.1942 and 05.10.1943 and was imprisoned in Baripada Central Jail for seven days and also during 1941-42.

After independence, the Government of India to benefit the freedom fighters created a scheme called Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972which provided for the grant of pension to those freedom fighters whose annual income did not exceed Rs.5000. Subsequently Swatantra Scheme Sainik Samman, 1980was formulated and adopted on August 1, 1980.

On 19.07.1988, the petitioner’s co-prisoner who was lodged in the Central Jail, Baripada, filed an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, Baripada, stating that when he was incarcerated in the said jail, the petitioner was also lodged therein. , who was sentenced to 7 days under the Mayurbhanj forest laws in Goyal (Gayal/Bison) Shooting Case. in Bangree.

He further stated that more than 300 persons were convicted by the then GGB, Udala, and the applicant was one of them. In addition, the petitioner was lodged in the Baripada Central Jail during the year 1941-42 when the petitioner was a political prisoner.

On 27.07.1988, the applicant submitted an application under oath for the award of pension to freedom fighters, stating the above facts. Since the authorities did not take any positive step, he appealed to the Chief Minister for his intervention. He ran from pillar to post, praying for a pension, but in vain. With no other alternative, he eventually knocked at the portals of the High Court.

Senior lawyer K. AND. Rao, who appeared for the plaintiff, argued that the authorities used a “hyper-technical approach” to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim, even though it is genuine and otherwise supported by affidavits given by him to fellow inmates. ago.

He also emphasized that the purpose of the Scheme is to honor and alleviate the suffering of those who have given their all for the country and therefore a liberal rather than a technical approach must be taken in determining the merits of an individual’s case. looking for a pension under the scheme.

He relied on Kamalbai Sinkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. to submit that the claimants’ case under the Scheme must be determined on the balance of probabilities and not be tested beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thus, he submitted that the court should accept the fact that the petitioner has produced an affidavit given by one of his fellow prisoners which clearly shows that he was imprisoned in Baripada Jail as a Praja Mandal activist. In addition, the prison authorities also did not provide documentary evidence of the applicant’s imprisonment. Therefore, he firmly argued that a century-old resident cannot be expected to provide rigorous proof of his statement.

On the other hand, Additional Government Advocate (AGA), appearing for the State Government, submitted that since it was mandatory, the petitioner should have been imprisoned for at least six months and as there is no evidence that the plaintiff was imprisoned during such period, his claim was fairly dismissed. In addition, he noted that, contrary to the requirement to provide two certificates of fellow inmates, the applicant provided one and thus did not meet the admissibility criteria.

He again contended that though the petitioner claims to have been underground for one year during the freedom movement, he has not adduced either primary or secondary evidence as required under the Scheme as well as the guidelines and therefore his claim cannot be considered. . The Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI), speaking for the Union Government, also supported the contentions made by the AGA.

Conclusions

The court noted that the plaintiff’s demands are twofold – firstlywas in the underground from September 1, 1942 to October 5, 1943 and secondhe was lodged in Baripada Jail for 7 days in connection with the agitation against the Mayurbhanj Forest Acts and again during 1941-42 as a Praja Mandal activist.

Justice Mishra passed Points 4 and 9 with Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980which ensured the eligibility and modality of confirming the claims, respectively. On perusal of the above provisions, he observed that, admittedly, the petitioner has not adduced any evidence to support his claim of being underground during the above period. However, he produced an affidavit given by one of his fellow prisoners who was in receipt of pension from the Central Government as well as from the Odisha Government.

The Court referred to the directions issued by the Freedom Fighters Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 15.09.2006 which clearly stated that the objective of the scheme was to honor genuine freedom fighters without harassment or delay and to differentiate between fake and genuine applicants.

“Before proceeding, this court observes that to a large extent plaintiff’s claim was not dismissed as false, but was dismissed only for failure to present evidence as to the required term of imprisonment. Otherwise, there is no material in the record to indicate that the plaintiff’s claim is not genuine.” noted the Court.

In this context, the Court referred to the following observation made by the Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India & Ors:

“Once the country has decided to honor such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats tasked with handling the cases of such freedom fighters should keep in mind the aim and object of the scheme. Plaintiffs’ case under this scheme must be determined on the probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt.»

Notably, the Court requested the Public Prosecutor to provide information regarding the applicant’s imprisonment in Baripada Jail, but the Jail Administration categorically stated that the relevant information was not in their files as it related to an incident that is more than 79 years old.

Thus, the Single Court ruled that when the prison authorities themselves are unable to trace records relating to their own prison, it is too much to expect a 100-year-old man to collect and present evidence relating to his incarceration nearly eight decades ago .

“In fact, the very ideals that inspired the freedom movement were recognized by the Constitution as something citizens should remember and cherish as a fundamental duty. Article 51-A(b) of the Constitution obliges citizens to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom.’ he added.

Thus, the court came to the conclusion that though the exact period of imprisonment has not been proved, but there is certainty that the petitioner was imprisoned in Baripada Jail in connection with the Praja Mandal movement. Also, there are some records that show that he is revered and respected as a freedom fighter in his locality.

“Taking a general view of the matter, therefore, the insistence of the authorities on the part of the applicant to provide strict evidence of its claim appears rather harsh and, in any event, serves to defeat the very purpose of the Scheme.” it was observed.

Accordingly, the respondent authorities were directed to award the freedom fighters pension in favor of the petitioner from the date of his application with the entire arrears.

Case name: Chakradhar Pradhan v. Union of India & Anr.

Case No.: WP(C) No. 23220 of 2013

Date of decision: December 23, 2024

The plaintiff’s lawyer: Mr. K. AND. Rao, Senior Advocate M/s. Sarat Kumar Behera & SK Parida Advocates

Defendant’s lawyer: Mr. P. K. Parhi, DSGI with Mr. S. WITH. Kashyap, adviser to the central government; p. WITH. Bechera, Adl. Government lawyer

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 98

Click here to read/download the order