Calcutta High Court: In a petition filed by a freedom fighter, challenging the order dated 20-03-2024 passed by the O.S.D. and Ex-Officio Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, rejecting his eligibility for Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension, 1980 (‘SSS Pension Scheme’) due to non-availability of original records and no scope to rescind the earlier decision of the Government, a Single Judge Bench of Ajay Kumar Gupta, J., held that the rejection of the petitioner’s prayer was unjustifiable and liable to be set aside, and accordingly allowed the petition. The Court concluded that the certificate issued by veteran freedom fighters was deemed to be secondary and valid evidence, which needed to be considered for granting pension to the petitioner.
Background:
On the 25th Anniversary of Independence, the Central Government introduced the Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme, 1972 (‘1972 Scheme’) for granting pension to living freedom fighters and their dependants. Initially, pension was Rs 200 per month for freedom fighters and between Rs 100 to Rs 200 for family members, subject to an annual income ceiling of Rs 5000. Thereafter, the SSS Pension Scheme was introduced from 01-08-1980 in place of the 1972 Scheme.
Consequently, through a letter dated 12-04-1983, the Deputy Secretary, Government of India, consolidated guidelines for grant of pension. It was provided that in absence of official records, a Personal Knowledge Certificate (‘PKC’) from a freedom fighter who had suffered imprisonment of not less than 5 years could be relied upon. By letter dated 21-08-1984, the eligibility criterion of the certifier’s jail sufferings was relaxed from 5 years to 2 years.
The petitioner applied on 14-07-1981 for pension under the Scheme, enclosing a general Non-Availability of Record Certificate (‘NARC’) issued by the District Magistrate and a PKC issued by an approved certifier. On 14-04-1983, the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal requested confirmation of the PKC’s authenticity while informing the petitioner that his application was under review. The certifier confirmed the PKC’s genuineness on 22-08-1983, and the petitioner sought correction of genuine errors in his application on 24-08-1983.
Despite such confirmation, the State Government declined to recommend the petitioner’s case on the ground that the certifier had suffered imprisonment of less than 5 years. The petitioner, however, pointed out that the required jail suffering of the certifier had been reduced to 2 years by notification dated 21-08-1984. He also approached the Government of India on 05-09-1986 for consideration of his claim.
Pursuant to enquiries ordered by the State Government in 2015, it was reported that no jail records of the petitioner were available. However, local enquiry by the Officer-in-Charge DIB, Purba Medinipore revealed that the petitioner was a bona fide freedom fighter who had remained underground between August 1942 and September 1944 to evade arrest, acting under the guidance of prominent leaders. Accordingly, having actively participated in the Quit India Movement and remained underground pursuant to a detention order, the petitioner was entitled to pension under the Scheme based on the PKC issued by the certifier and the NARC issued by the District Magistrate.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed the records and considered the submissions of the parties and found that it was an admitted fact that no official record was available regarding the petitioner’s claim. It also came on record that the petitioner was a bona fide freedom fighter but was never confined in jail. The Court noted that the facts were confirmed by the Superintendent, Tamluk Subsidiary Correctional Home, who informed the Additional District Magistrate, Purba Medinipur that no exact date or year of detention could be traced.
The Court emphasised that the PKC issued by the approved certifier was admissible as secondary evidence in absence of primary evidence, since the said certificate could have been considered by the authority, particularly when no primary or contrary evidence was produced by the respondents. The Court further highlighted that the certifier was also a freedom fighter and had suffered actual imprisonment for more than 5 years during the freedom struggle.
The Court referred to Gajendranath Manna v. State of West Bengal, 2010 SCC OnLine Cal 1590, wherein it was held that that if any Secondary evidence i.e. PKC was provided by a certifier was admissible in evidence in case of non-availability of original records.
The Court emphasised that the relaxation reducing certifiers’ jail suffering from 5 years to 2 years was applicable to claims received before 31-03-1982. The Court observed that the petitioner’s case was pending prior to that date, having applied on 14-07-1981 along with a general NARC issued by the District Magistrate and a PKC issued by the approved certifier of the district. The Court further noted that it was not disputed by the respondents that the certifier was an eligible approved certifier for grant of pension under the scheme.
The Court clarified that it was true that the certifier had earlier issued a certificate describing the petitioner as a proclaimed offender. Subsequently, the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal sought clarification about the genuineness of the certificate and the mistake therein. The Court observed that both the certifier and the petitioner duly intimated the corrections, clarifying that the petitioner was one for whose detention orders were issued, but he evaded arrest.
The Court observed that the respondents rejected the certificate without cogent justification, since they did not declare it as not genuine, and the certifier clarified that the certificate was issued inadvertently and corrected later. The Court further noted that no contra evidence emerged from the record to discard the certificate, which had initially described the petitioner as a proclaimed offender and was subsequently corrected to reflect that he had evaded arrest under a detention order.
The Court found that in both cases, whether a proclaimed offender or one against whom detention orders were issued but who evaded arrest, the petitioner was entitled to pension under the Scheme. The Court further clarified that there was no serious doubt about the certificate issued by the certifier, since the veracity of the certificate issued by the veteran freedom fighter could not be doubted or established to be a false certificate or the contents of the certificate were factually incorrect.
The Court concluded that, in terms of Clause 9 of the SSS Pension Scheme, the certificate issued by veteran freedom fighters was deemed secondary and valid evidence. The Court further held that rejection of the petitioner’s prayer was unjustifiable and liable to be set aside, and accordingly, the petition was allowed without order as to costs. The concerned respondent authorities were directed to pay the petitioner freedom fighter’s pension under the liberalised SSS Pension Scheme, with effect from the date of the Court’s order, within four months from the date of communication of the judgment.
[Narayan Chandra Maiti v. Union of India, WPA 11008 of 2024, decided on 27-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ramdulal Manna, Adv., Manju Manna (Dey), Adv., Sanyasachi Mondal, Adv., Sayan Mukherjee, Adv., Payel Khanra, Adv
For the Respondents: Sukumar Bhattacharyya, Pradyut Saha, Adv. Basu Mallick, Adv., Amrita Panja Moulick, Adv.
