Orissa High Court
Satrughna Sahoo vs Union Of India And Another on 23 November, 2016
Equivalent citations: AIR 2017 (NOC) 118 (ORI.)
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA,CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.10491 of 2014
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
-------
Satrughna Sahoo ......... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & another
......... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr.A.S. Nandy
For Opp. Parties : Mr.H.S.Panda,
Central Government Counsel,
(For opposite party no.1)
Miss.S.Mishra,
Additional Standing Counsel
(For opposite party no.2)
.........
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.P.CHOUDHURY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing: 27.10.2016 Date of judgment:23.11.2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. D.P.Choudhury, J. Challenge has been made to the illegal refusal
made by the opposite party no.1 to sanction Freedom Fighters‟ Pension
to the petitioner under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme,
1980 (hereinafter called „Pension Scheme‟).
FACTS
2. The unshorn details leading to the case of the petitioner is
that the petitioner, being freedom fighter, actively participated during the
movement for independence of India and mobilised the people not to
give taxes and to object the construction of road and road tax and other
-2-
taxes to the English people for which the petitioner was imprisoned in
Rajdarbar of Talcher from 23.1.1944 to 25.12.1945 with the other
punishment of canning and kicks. As such, the petitioner claims for the
Freedom Fighters‟ Pension under the Pension Scheme from the Central
Revenue for which he had to file a writ petition bearing O.J.C. No.9074 of
1997 before this Court and vide order dated 26.3.2012, this Court
disposed of the said writ petition directing the petitioner to make an
application under the Scheme by enclosing all the relevant documents to
the Chief Secretary of the State Government, who was further directed to
take a decision within certain period.
3. In pursuance of the order dated 26.3.2012, the petitioner
made representation on 10.8.2012 to the State Government and the
Union of India along with the supported documents. After receiving the
application, the Union of India sent a letter to the State Government on
6.9.2012along with the application of the petitioner and all documents for verification and to give report on that application for implementation of the order passed by this Court on 26.3.2012. Thereafter, again the Union of India asked for some documents which are not possible on the part of the petitioner to arrange. However, the petitioner applied to the Jail Authority of Special Jail, Talcher requesting him to furnish the details of the detention in jail custody and also requested the co-prisoners namely Bichhanda Ch. Pradhan and Dila Sahu to give co-prisoner certificate. After arranging document, the petitioner made representation whereafter the matter was referred to the Union of India by the State Government. By virtue of the letter dated 6.2.2014, opposite party no.1 -3- informed the petitioner through the State Government that the request for Freedom Fighters‟ Pension has been rejected because the State Government has not sent the required information or documents. The State Government, on 6.2.2014, also issued a letter to the petitioner asking to furnish the co-prisoner certificate in the prescribed formant from the freedom fighter who had undergone jail to the State Government for recommending the case of the petitioner to Government of India for reconsideration by the Union of India for grant of Freedom Fighters‟ Pension. The petitioner also complied the requirement but the State Government informed the petitioner that the Union of India has suo motu rejected his representation again on flimsy grounds although in absence of jail records for the period between 1944 and 1945, the petitioner has already furnished certificate of co-prisoners to receive the Freedom Fighters‟ Pension under the Pension Scheme. Since both the opposite parties did not consider the sanction of pension under the Scheme to the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. Per contra, the opposite party no.1 has filed counter affidavit stating therein that under the Pension Scheme, the persons are entitled to pension, if they fulfil the criteria mentioned therein. Be it stated that the petitioner ought to have furnished the following documents to claim pension under the Pension Scheme as per the criteria herein below:
"xx xx xx xx
(a) In case of imprisonment a certificate from the concerned jail authority, District Magistrate or the State Government indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release, facts of the case and reasons for release.
-4-
(b) In case the records of the relevant period are not available with the State Govt., a Non-Availability of Records Certificate (NARC) in prescribed formant from the concerned State Government is required along with two Co-Prisoner Certificates (CPC) from freedom fighters who had a proven jail sufferings of minimum 1 year and who were with the applicant in the jail for a minimum period of six months. In case the certifier happens to be a sitting M.P. or MLA or Ex. M.P./M.L.A., only one Co- Prisoners‟ Certificate in place of two is required."
5. It is also revealed from the counter affidavit that the petitioner should have made two applications enclosing the required documents, one directly to the Union of India and the second one to be filed before the State Government, who would verify the documents and recommend the case to the opposite party no.1, but failing to do so, the representation of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. It is also stated that the Court have passed the order on 26.3.2012 directing the petitioner to make fresh representation within 21 days, but the petitioner applied beyond the time stipulated by this Court, i.e. on 10.8.2012 for which the application of the petitioner was not liable to be allowed. Further, the Union of India found that the Government of Orissa has not verified the jail sufferings of the petitioner and the certificate of the co- prisoners did not accompany with the jail suffering records. Be it stated, one freedom fighter, namely, Dila Sahu whose name has been mentioned by the petitioner would go to show that Sri Sahu has undergone imprisonment for 1938 to 1939, but not during the time of incarceration of the present petitioner. Further, the positive recommendation of the State was absent and even if it is sent, the same is not binding on the Union of India. So, the Union of India, following the dictum of the Hon‟ble -5- Supreme Court and other Courts and finding that the Scheme is not available, the opposite party refused to grant the Freedom Fighters‟ Pension to the petitioner.
6. The opposite party no.2 has filed separate counter affidavit refuting the relief claimed by the present petitioner. According to the opposite party no.2, the petitioner has invoked the secondary evidence but the freedom fighter certificate issued by one Bichhanda Ch. Pradhan to the petitioner did not mention about the exact dates of imprisonment and release of the petitioner from jail. The second certificate given by Dila Sahu shows that he is not a co-prisoner. The opposite party no.2 averred that the certificates produced by the petitioner from Sri Bhajaman Behera, Ex-MP issued in the co-prisoner format is not acceptable under the Scheme for which the A.D.M., Angul failed to recommend the case of the petitioner to the Union of India for sanction of Freedom Fighters‟ Pension. So, it is stated that the action of the Union of India and the State Government are legal and proper. SUBMISSIONS
7. Mr.Nandy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, having approached this Court in OJC No.9074 of 1997 where an order was passed on 26.3.2012 to make fresh representation enclosing all the documents, had submitted representation with all documents to the State Government and same was forwarded to the Central Government as the concerned pension is to be received from the Central Revenue. He further submitted that under the Pension Scheme, the claim of imprisonment is considered subject to furnishing primary -6- evidence and in absence of primary evidence, secondary evidence can be adduced in the following manner:
"Imprisonment Suffering: a person who had suffered minimum imprisonment of six months (3 months in case of women, SC/ST freedom fighters) on accounts of participation in freedom struggle subject to furnishing of the following evidence:-
(a) Primary Evidence:- Imprisonment/detention certificate from the concerned jail authority, District Magistrate or the State Government indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release, facts of the case reasons for release.
(b) Secondary Evidence:- In case records of the relevant period are not available, secondary evidence in the form of 2 co-prisoner certificates (CPCs) from freedom fighters who have proven jail suffering of minimum 1 year and who were the applicant in the jail could be considered provided the State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned, after due verification of the claim and its genuineness, certifies that the documentary evidence from the official records in support of the claimed suffering are not available. In case the certifier happens to be a sitting or Ex.MP/MLA, only one certificate in place of the two is required."
8. He further contended that on 31.5.2013, the A.D.M., Angul informed that the relevant records pertaining to 1944 to 1945 in which year the petitioner was imprisoned are not available in the office of the Superintendent of Special Sub-Jail, Talcher and accordingly primary evidence is not made available for which the petitioner has got secondary evidence in his favour. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that according to the provisions of secondary evidence, the petitioner has got two co-prisoner certificates, one from Bichhanda Ch. Pradhan and the another from Dila Sahu, but the opposite parties have illegally rejected those certificates on the ground that the certificate of B.C.Pradhan does -7- not disclose the offence and the case number in which he was imprisoned and the statement of Dila Sahu does not disclose that he was a co- prisoner during 1944 to 1945 in which period, the petitioner claimed to be a prisoner. He further submitted that in addition to those documents, the petitioner has also submitted a certificate of Ex-MP Bhajaman Behera but that was also rejected by the opposite parties for the reasons best known to them. He further submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide freedom fighter and has adduced sufficient evidence under the Scheme to receive the Freedom Fighters‟ Pension.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the pension for the freedom fighter is a great honour to the freedom fighters who had shed their blood like Netaji Subhash Ch. Bose for the independence of the country and if they are not honoured and their claim is rejected like the present case, the patriotism of the people shall go always as in question. He further submitted that in the similar nature of case, this Court in the case of Smt. Hiramani Panda -V- State of Orissa and another; 2002 (II) OLR 252 have been pleased to observe that under secondary evidence, two alternative modes of proof of suffering imprisonment of a person, i.e, firstly by producing two co-prisoner certificates or in absence of it, one co-prisoner certificate from the Ex-MP/MLA or sitting MP/MLA would fulfill the requirement to receive such pension under erstwhile Freedom Fighters‟ Pension Scheme, 1992, which is now liberalized as the Pension Scheme, 1980. So, he submitted to award the pension from the date of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition, i.e., 26.3.2012 so that the object of the Scheme would be properly -8- implemented and the right of the present petitioner would be successfully adjudicated.
10. Mr.Panda, learned Central Government Counsel for the Union of India submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of the Scheme because the reply of the Ministry of Home Affairs sent on 6.2.2014 under Annexure-3 is self-explanatory. According to him, since the petitioner has not filed the supported documents to the satisfaction of the Union of India and the State Government also did not recommend the case of the petitioner properly, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits under the Scheme. He reiterated that the certificate of the co- prisoner B.C.Pradhan does not disclose about the year of imprisonment and the offences in which charge-sheet submitted or convicted and also there is no positive recommendation on behalf of the State Government for which the representation of the petitioner was short of requirements to receive pension under the Scheme.
11. Miss.Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State Government, opposite party no.3, submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 26.3.2012 passed by this Court in OJC No.9074 of 1997, the petitioner submitted representation along with the required document, but the Union of India on 1.1.2014 asked the State Government to verify the co-prisoner certificates which lack some information as stated by the learned counsel for the Union of India, but due to lack of information obtained from the concerned jail, the State Government wrote letter to the Union of India who did not allow any -9- pension. But, the State Government again asked the petitioner to submit the documents for sending the same to the opposite party no.1 for reconsideration of the representation. Since the State Government has no role except recommending the case, the petitioner has no claim against the State Government, opposite party no.2. POINT FOR CONSIDERAITON
11. The main point for consideration in this case is:
"(1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to Freedom Fighters‟ Pension under the Pension Scheme?"
DISCUSSION ISSUE NO.(1)
12. It is admitted fact that the petitioner had filed OJC No.9074 of 1997 before this Court and vide order dated 26.3.2012, the petitioner was directed to submit representation enclosing the required documents and in pursuance of that, the petitioner submitted representation. It is also admitted fact that under the Scheme, there are provisions for adducing evidence of primary nature and in absence of primary evidence, the secondary evidence can be adduced and all are subject to satisfaction of the concerned authority. The petitioner claims to be a freedom fighter being imprisoned for one year, i.e, from 1944 to 1945.
13. The scheme, as detailed by the learned Central Government Counsel for the opposite party no.1, has asked for primary evidence to claim the benefit under the Scheme and in absence of that, direction for filing of documents which are pre-condition for receiving the Freedom Fighters‟ Pension. The petitioner has brought to the knowledge of this Court about the letter of the ADM, Angul dated 31.5.2013 whereby it has
- 10 -
been communicated to the State Government that records pertaining to the year 1944 to 1945 are not available in the office of the Superintendent of Special Sub-Jail, Talcher. So, according to first criteria, primary evidence is not available in this case.
14. While the petitioner intends to adduce secondary evidence in support of his plea, he relies upon the certificates given by the co- prisoners Sri B.C.Pradhan and Sri Dila Sahu and the certificate of one Bhajaman Behera, who was an Ex-MP.
15. The purpose of the Scheme is well delineated in the decision reported in Gurdial Singh -V- Union of India and others; (2001) 8 SCC 8 and Their Lordships, at paragraph-6, have observed as follow:
"6. The scheme was introduced with the object of providing grant of pension to living freedom fighters and their families and to the families of martyrs. It has to be kept in mind that millions of masses of this country had participated in the freedom struggle without any expectation of grant of any scheme at the relevant time. It has also to be kept in mind that in the partition of the country most of citizens who suffered imprisonment were handicapped to get the relevant record from the jails where they had suffered imprisonment. The problem of getting the record from the foreign country is very cumbersome and expensive. Keeping in mind the object of the scheme, the concerned authorities are required that in appreciating the scheme for the benefit of freedom fighters a rationale and not a technical approach is required to be adopted. It has also to be kept in mind that the claimants of the scheme are supposed to be such persons who had given the best part of their life for the country. This Court in Mukand Lal Bhandari's case(supra) 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 observed:
"The object in making the said relaxation was not to reward or compensate the sacrifices made in the freedom struggle. The object was to honour and where it was necessary, also to mitigate the sufferings of
- 11 -
those who had given their all for the country in the hour of its need. In fact, many of those who do not have sufficient income to maintain themselves refuse to take benefit of it, since they consider it as an affront to the sense of patriotism with which they plunged in the Freedom Struggle. The spirit of the Scheme being both to assist and honour the needy and acknowledge the valuable sacrifices made, it would be contrary to its spirit to convert it into some kind of a programme of compensation. Yet that may be the result if the benefit is directed to be given retrospectively whatever the date the application is made. The scheme should retain its high objective with which it was motivated. It should not further be forgotten that now its benefit is made available irrespective of the income limit. Secondly, and this is equally important to note, since we are by this decision making the benefit of the scheme available irrespective of the date on which the application is made, it would not be advisable to extend the benefit retrospectively. Lastly, the pension under the present Scheme is not the only benefit made available to the freedom fighters or their dependents. The preference in employment, allotment of accommodation and in admission to schools and colleges of their kith and kin etc., are also the other benefits which have been made available to them for quite sometime now.
Xx xx xx xx"
With due respect to the above decision, it appears that the Scheme was launched with avowed object and it is purely based on the honour for the freedom fighters who have sacrificed their lives for the country. In the same decision, the standard of proof required to prove for obtaining pension is well discussed at paragraph-7 of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Singh (Supra), which is reproduced as under:
"7.The standard of proof required in such cases is not such standard which is required in a criminal case or in a case adjudicated upon rival contentions or evidence of the parties. As the object of the scheme is to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country, a liberal and not a technical
- 12 -
approach is required to be followed while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking pension under the scheme. It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by scheme have suffered for the country about half a century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them. Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the scheme. The case of the claimants under this scheme is required to be determined on the basis of the probabilities and not on the touch-stone of the test of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Once on the basis of the evidence it is probabilised that the claimant had suffered imprisonment for the cause of the country and during the freedom struggle, a presumption is required to be drawn in his favour unless the same is rebutted by cogent, reasonable and reliable evidence."
16. From the above discussion, it appears that in every case the freedom fighter is not required to prove the case beyond all shadow of doubts but the preponderance of probability which is basic norms to prove the case in every civil case is the call of the day to expound the objective of granting or sanctioning the Freedom Fighters‟ Pension. In the present case, the attitude of the opposite parties to the claim of the petitioner in a very nitty-gritty manner does not spell out positive to achieve the objective of granting of Freedom Fighters‟ Pension. When the petitioner has adduced the certificate of co-prisoner in the prescribed format and the prescribed form does not disclose about the offence of the IPC in which a co-prisoner has undergone imprisonment and the case number to be mentioned, it is not for the authority to demand for the same for granting such pension. While the freedom fighter was fighting for the nation, he has never thought to keep in the memory or taken
- 13 -
note of the case number or the offences which would be required for the future benefits as he/she sacrificed the life for the nation without having any self vested interest and the only aim was there to keep the nation free from the outsiders or foreigners.
17. Now, adverting to the present case and keeping in mind the object of the scheme as expounded by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, it appears that the certificate given by B.C.Pradhan clearly shows in the following manner:
"CO-PRISONER CERTIFICATE (To be signed by a freedom fighter who have undergone imprisonment for at least one year and is the receipient of Tamrapatra and Pension from Government of India"
I (the undersigned) Bichhanda Charan Pradhan, Son of Sri Sudarsan Pradha, village-Kansamunda, Po- Kansamund, District-Angul am a freedom fighter and I am a receipient of Tamrapatra and pension from the Central Revenue vide P.P. No.3159/CE.
I suffered imprisonment during the freedom struggle and was lodged in Talcher Sub-Jail in Angul district during the period from 23.1.1944 to 15.4.1946.
I hereby certify that Sri Satrughna Sahoo, resident of Palasabahali, Anugl district, is a bona fide freedom fighter who was also imprisonment on account of his participation in the freedom movement during the freedom struggle, and was lodged in the same jail along with me during the period from 1944-45. To the best of my knowledge and belief, he was not prematurely released from jail on account of any oral or written apology tendered by him.
Place:Kansamudna Sd/-Bichhanda Charan Pradhan Central PP No.3159/CE, Odisha State PP No.4615/P"
18. The aforesaid certificate unquestionably shows that the present petitioner was a co-prisoner during the period from 1944 to 1945. Of course, the certificate of Dila Sahu clearly shows that he was a
- 14 -
prisoner during the period from 1938 to 1939 but he was not a co- prisoner as the present petitioner has purportedly claimed to be a prisoner from 1944 to 1945. So, the said certificate cannot be said as a certificate of a co-prisoner. Another certificate has been submitted by Bhajaman Behera, Ex-MP in the following manner:
"Annexure I CO-PRISONER CERTIFICATE (To be signed by a Sitting M.P/M.L.A or an Ex-MP/ex-
MLA) I (the undersigned) Sri Bhajaman Behera, Son of Shri Late Bhagirathi Behera, am a sitting member of /an ex-
member of the Lok Sabha, Delhi, Legislative Assembly/Council of the State of Odish from the Constituency of Dhenkanal in the State/Union Territory of Odisha Xx xx xx xx I hereby certify that Sri Satrughan Sahoo, Son of Shri Late Surendra Sahoo, resident of Palasabahali, in Angul District, is a bona fide freedom fighter who has also imprisoned on account of his participation in the freedom Movement during the freedom struggle, and was lodged in Talcher Sub-Jail during the period from 1944-45. To the best of my knowledge and belief, he was not prematurely released from jail on account of any oral or written apology tendered by him.
Date.10.3.2014 Sd/-Bhajaman Behera
10.3.2014"
19. In the aforesaid certificate, it is clear that he being the MP has got knowledge that the present petitioner is a bona fide freedom fighter, who has been imprisoned on account of freedom struggle and lodged in Talcher Sub-Jail from 1944 to 1945 but he candidly admitted that the petitioner was not his co-prisoner. Now, it is to be seen that what is the requirement of the certificate of an Ex-MP/MLA.
- 15 -
20. It is reported in the case of Smt. Hiramani Panda (Supra) where Their Lordships, at paragraph-6, have observed in the following manner:
"6. Xx xx xx xx Thus two alternative modes have been given in the said scheme for proof of suffering of a person by way of imprisonment for a minimum period of six months in the mainland jail before independence, Either certificates from the concerned jail authorities, District Magistrate or State Government may be produced or in case of non-availability of such certificates, co- prisoners' certificate from a sitting M.P. or M.L.A. or from an Ex-M.P. or Ex-M.L.A. specifying the jail period has to be produced. The scheme does not provide that in all cases certificates from the concerned Jail authorities or District Magistrate or the State Government have to be produced and makes a provision that if such certificates are not available, the co-prisoner certificate of a sitting or Ex-M.P. or M.L.A. will be taken as proof."
With due respect to the above decision, it appears that in the said decision, this Court considered the case under erstwhile Freedom Fighters‟ Pension Scheme, 1972 which is later liberalized and came with the Pension Scheme of 1980. From the aforesaid decision, it is clear that in absence of two certificates by co-prisoners, the only certificate of sitting or Ex-MP/MLA who has become the co-prisoner of the concerned person seeking pension under the Scheme would be suffice to meet the requirement. So, in the present case, the certificate of Bhajaman Behera, Ex-MP who is not a co-prisoner does not fulfil the requirement.
21. Out of three certificates furnished in this case, one certificate of B.C.Jena who is a co-prisoner is valid and can be considered for testing the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner. The requirement under the
- 16 -
secondary evidence is to produce two co-prisoners certificates but in the event of one co-prisoner certificate by sitting or Ex-MP/MLA, requirement would be well met. Thus, from the clear interpretation of said clause for secondary evidence is to find out the genuineness of the claim of the freedom fighter inasmuch as the real purpose of granting or sanctioning the Freedom Fighters‟ Pension under the Pension Scheme is to honour them for their noble deed and it is to be only seen whether he has undergone imprisonment suffering during the freedom movement. The very purpose and object of the Pension Scheme is well delineated in the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari and others -V- Union of India and others; AIR 1993 SC 2127 where Their Lordships, at paragraph-4, has observed as follows:
"xx xx xx What is more, if the Scheme has been introduced with the genuine desire to assist and honour those who had given the best part of their life for the country, it ill- behoves the Government to raise pleas of limitation against such claims. In fact, the Government, if it possible for them to do so, should find out the freedom fighters or their dependents and approach them with the pension instead of requiring them to make applications for the same. That would be the true spirit of working out such Schemes. The Schemes has rightly been renamed in 1985 as the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme to accord with its object.
Xx xx xx"
The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Lal Bhandari and others (Supra), at paragraph-5, has observed as follows:
"xx xx xx
- 17 -
There is no doubt that if the object of the Scheme is to benefit the freedom fighters, theoretically they should be entitled the freedom fighters, theoretically, they should be entitled to the benefit from the date the Scheme came into operation. But the history, the true spirit and the object of the Scheme would itself probably not support such straight-jacket formula Xx xx xx."
With due respect to the aforesaid decision, it appears that Their Lordships were considering from which date a freedom fighter would get the pension whether from the date of application or from the date of the order. Their Lordships in the above case have clearly observed that the benefit of the Scheme should be extended to the genuine freedom fighters and no technicality should be attached to scrutinize the case and the only requirement is whether he has suffered imprisonment or gone underground or otherwise suffered during freedom movement as required under the Scheme. Keeping in view the avowed object of the scheme, the only requirement is to find out the genuineness of the claim of the person to be a freedom fighter. So, in my considered view, while keeping in view the object and the reasons behind the scheme as delineated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the genuineness can be also found out from one certificate of the co-prisoner instead of two as insisted in the Pension Scheme of 1980. While adverting to the present case, it appears that there is clear certificate of the co-prisoner Sri Bichhanda Ch. Pradhan, who was also imprisoned in the same jail where the present petitioner was imprisoned for one year is sufficient, that is sufficient proof as the secondary evidence for his entitlement to get the Freedom Fighters‟ Pension under the Pension Scheme of 1980.
- 18 -
22. Now, adverting to the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the criteria under the Pension Scheme, being not fulfilled by the petitioner, petitioner falls short of the parameters of the Scheme is thus indefensible. Reiterating the requirement of the Pension Scheme where the secondary evidence can be taken into consideration to award Freedom Fighters‟ Pension and taking the purposive interpretation of such clause in the instant case, the co-prisoner certificate of B.C.Pradhan is a good secondary evidence for claiming participation of the petitioner in the freedom struggle for a period of one year, i.e, from 1944 to 1945. Thus, the petitioner has imprisoned actually during the freedom struggle qualifying himself to claim for pension under the Pension Scheme.
CONCLUSION
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner being well proved by the petitioner through the certificate of one co-prisoner B.C.Pradhan, the application of the petitioner should be considered favourably by the opposite parties. So, considering the avowed object of the scheme and the secondary evidence being adduced by the petitioner, fact that awarding the Freedom Fighters‟ Pension being not charity but an honour to the petitioner, there nothing remains to deny his claim. Thus, the Court is of the view that Annexures- 3 and 5 being de hors to the object and intent of the Scheme, same are liable to be quashed and the Court do so. It is directed that the only certificate of his co-prisoner is to be scrutinized with reference to
- 19 -
documents of B.C.Pradhan as pension holder by the opposite party no.2 and after that, the opposite party no.1 is further directed to award Freedom Fighters‟ Pension to the petitioner after observing the formalities under the Pension Scheme. The entire exercise must be completed within a period of two months as it is stated at the Bar that the petitioner is already at the advance age.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
................................
Dr.D.P.Choudhury,J.
Orissa High Court,Cuttack Dated the 23rd Noveber,2016/B.Nayak