SH. SUKHAI THAKUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 11.04.2012 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the W.P.(C) No.2022/2012 preferred by the appellant. The said writ petition was filed seeking a direction for grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (SSS Pension) to the appellant by quashing the rejection letter dated 14.12.2007 of the respondent No.1 UOI.

(2.) It is the case of the appellant that he had participated in The Quit India Movement, 1942; that he and his colleagues Mr. Rama Nand Das and others had captured the Railway Station, Post Office and Police Station and disconnected the communication of the British Government from Madhubani and District Headquarter Darbhanga as well as Patna; that in this connection a criminal case was registered against the appellant and his colleagues vide GR No.834 on 18.08.1942 in the name and style of Emperor Vs. Rama Nand Das & Others, under Sections 307, 147 and 135 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Rule 38(4) of the Defence of India ( DI) Rules; that the appellant absconded due to apprehension of his arrest and the Court had issued Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) of his arrest since 25.09.1942, though he was never arrested; consequently, coercive action under Section 82/83 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was also taken and the movable property of the appellant was attached on 22.06.1944 and he was declared a Proclaimed Offender (PO); that the said case was finally withdrawn on 31.05.1946 when the appellant was discharged; that though he was not eligible under the Freedom Fighters Scheme, 1972 but upon introduction of the SSS Pension Scheme in the year 1981, being an absconder for more than six months in the said case, became eligible for pension; that he applied for pension under the said Scheme on 24.07.1981 stating the said facts duly supported by documents but his application was rejected vide letter dated 14.12.2007. It is further the case of the appellant that though the State Government of Bihar had, after due verification of records and local verification from the District Magistrate, recommended grant of the said pension to him on 11.10.2004 and while many of the persons still alive and mentioned in GR No.834/1942 were receiving the said pension, he had been wrongly denied the same. The appellant in this regard cited the instances of one Mr. Anandi Mahto son of late Mr. Sukhdeo Mahto and of one Mr. Panak Lal Sahu, in whose favour the said pension had been sanctioned.

(3.) The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition without even inviting any counter affidavit from the respondents, observing that for a person to be eligible for pension under the Scheme, he should have on account of participation in the freedom struggle remained underground for more than six months for the reason of being a PO or one on whom an award for arrest or head was announced or one for whose detention, order was issued but not served; that the Scheme further required documentary evidence, by way of Court's / Government's order proclaiming the applicant as an offender, announcing an award on his head or for his arrest or ordering his detention, to be produced and in the absence of such primary evidence, a Non-availability of Records Certificate (NARC) to be produced from the concerned State Government/ Union Territory Administration along with a Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) from a prominent freedom fighter who has proven jail suffering of a minimum of two years and who happened to be from the same administrative district; that without the said formalities being complied, the Central Government could not consider a claim for such pension; that the appellant had not furnished primary evidence duly verified by the State Government in support of his claim; that though he had submitted a copy of an extract of the order sheet of GR No.834/1942 but the same had not been verified by the State Government from official records; that the order sheet of GR No.834/1942 furnished by the appellant also did not indicate the exact period of his underground suffering and did not indicate whether the appellant absconded, on being a PO, or one on whom an award for arrest /head was announced or one whose detention order was issued but not served the same also did not indicate the parentage of the appellant; that the appellant had also not furnished a valid NARC from the State Government; though the appellant had furnished a PKC but the issuer of the said Certificate had also not furnished any record / evidence of his own jail suffering of a minimum of two years. The learned Single Judge also found the PKC furnished by the appellant to be doubtful because the issuer thereof was certifying underground suffering of the appellant for the period when the issuer himself claimed to be in jail. The learned Single Judge thus held that the appellant had not satisfied the prescribed requirements for being eligible for pension.