Would Be Too Much To Expect Cogent Proof Regarding Incarceration: Orissa HC Directs Sanction Of Freedom Fighters’ Pension In Favour Of 100-Yr-Old Man
|The Orissa High Court has directed sanction of Freedom Fighters’ Pension in favour of a 100-year-old man, saying that it would be too much to expect cogent proof regarding his incarceration in the jail nearly 80 years ago.
The said man had approached the Court as he was aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for grant of Freedom Fighters’ Pension.
A Single Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed, “It is relevant to note that this Court directed the State Counsel to obtain information regarding the petitioner’s imprisonment in Baripada jail but the jail authorities categorically stated that the information relates to the year 1941- 42 i.e., more than 79 years, which is not available in the jail records and therefore, it is not possible on their part to intimate the period of detention of the petitioner in the jail custody. Such being the situation it would be too much to expect the petitioner to produce clear-cut or cogent proof regarding his incarceration in the jail nearly 80 years ago.”
The Bench added that it is necessary that the Petitioner’s claim must be considered favourably without adopting a strict or technical approach.
Senior Advocate C.A. Rao and Advocate S.K. Behera represented the Petitioner while AGA S. Behera, DSGI P.K. Parhi, and CGC S.S. Kashyap represented the Opposite Parties.
Factual Background -
The Petitioner claimed to have participated in the freedom movement of the country and remained underground during the period from September 1942 to October 1943. It was further claimed that he was imprisoned in Baripada Central Jail for seven days and again during 1941-42. After independence, the Government of India, in order to give benefit 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 in 1980. In 1988, a co-prisoner of the Petitioner who was lodged in the same Jail, swore an Affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, stating that when he was detained, the Petitioner was also 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 by Prafulla Kumar Das, SDO, Udala.
The Petitioner was one among them and further, he was also lodged in the Central Jail of Baripada during 1941- 42, when the deponent was a political prisoner. The Petitioner submitted an Affidavit sworn by him for grant of pension and since no action was taken, he submitted representation to the Chief Minister. The office of the Panchayat Samiti forwarded the Petitioner’s Application to the Collector, Mayurbhanj for sanction of pension. In 2013, the District Culture Officer forwarded his Application along with all related documents to the Deputy Director of Culture and a newspaper article was also published indicating how the Petitioner at the age of 87 was harassed by the authorities in getting pension even after 66 years of independence. As his claim for pension was rejected, he was before the High Court.
The High Court in the above regard, noted, “As already stated, the very object of the Scheme is to honour those who had made sacrifices for the country by participating in the freedom movement. In fact, 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 51- A(b) of the Constitution enjoins upon the citizens to “cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom”. This is implicit in the 1980 Scheme as crystallized in the guidelines of the Govt. of India referred to herein before.”
The Court said that the action of the authorities must be to further the object of the Scheme and not to frustrate it and in this case, there is at least evidence that the Petitioner was incarcerated in Baripada Jail in connection with Praja Mandal movement though the exact duration is not forthcoming from the records.
“In the case of Shatrughana Sahoo (Supra) this Court accepted one co-prisoner certificate as being sufficient proof of the petitioner’s claim. Here, the petitioner has produced one such certificate (affidavit) of a freedom fighter who was his co-prisoner. His claim has otherwise not been held to be fake or not genuine. There is some material on record to show that he is revered and respected as a freedom fighter in his locality”, it remarked.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the insistence of the authorities for adducing strict proof of his claim by the Petitioner does appear to be quite harsh and in any case, serves to frustrate the very object of the Scheme.
“This Court would however, hasten to add that it is not being laid down as a dictum that the requirements of the Scheme are to be relaxed in every case, but having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and in particular, considering the inability of the petitioner to produce strict evidence in support of his claim for the reasons indicated earlier, the authorities can take a lenient view”, it added.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the Petitioner’s claim deserves to be accepted and also directed the authorities to sanction the pension and ensure that the benefits including the arrears are disbursed to him as early as possible, preferably within one month.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Application.
Cause Title- Chakradhar Pradhan v. Union of India and Another