K DEVAKI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While dealing with cases relating to claims for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme of the Government of India, a question which occurred to me often was, "is the object of the pension merely to dole out some money to give some help to some freedom fighters to spend the rest of their lives or is the object a nobler one - I have asked this question to myself time and again. I am of opinion that while honouring them with a token help in their old age, we are honouring ourselves and our great nation, which is today the largest democracy in the world, only because of the sacrifice made by those great men. This sentiment has been expressed by many Judges of various High Courts and Supreme Court time and again. The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukundalal Bhandari v. Union of India, 1993 KHC 737 : AIR 1993 SC 2127 : 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2 is on point in this respect. Paragraph 4 of that judgment reads thus:

(2.) The freedom fighters are a vanishing lot. More so are the certifiers whose certificates are necessary to prove their claim for pension. In order to enable them to get the pension, they are expected to produce proof regarding incidents that happened more than half a century ago. It does not require hair splitting arguments to conclude that it is very very difficult, if not impossible to find out such proof either in the form of primary evidence or even secondary evidence which are testimonials from other freedom fighters who are qualified to be certifiers. It is realising the said difficulty of finding proof that the scheme itself provides for proof of jail suffering, underground suffering etc., of freedom fighters, by producing co - prisoners' certificates (CPC) and personal knowledge certificates from known freedom fighters. In some classes of freedom fighters, even that may not be very easy. One such class is the INA veterans. Their contributions came late in the freedom struggle for a comparatively very short period. As such, it may not always be possible to find out co - prisoners having the required length of imprisonment of one year or more, which is the qualification for a certifier, prescribed in the SSS Pension Scheme. The case before me is a classic example of such a situation.

(3.) Petitioner's husband, Sri. K. Kuttan, was a soldier in the Indian National Army under our great hero, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. He suffered imprisonment for four months in the Changi jail and three months' imprisonment in the Bangkok jail. In 1973, he filed an application for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. The same was not considered for want of a co - prisoners' certificate. By Ext. P1 dated 23/06/1989, he produced two co - prisoners' certificates and INA certificate and sought review of the earlier orders rejecting his claim for pension. In the meanwhile, he was granted pension under the Kerala Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme. While so, as evidenced by Ext. P2 death certificate, he died on 08/06/1990, without the satisfaction of receiving pension under the SSS Pension Scheme. The petitioner herein, the widow of Sri. K. Kuttan, submitted Ext. P4 application dated 20/12/1990, which was followed up by Ext. P5 application in the prescribed form, on 20/12/2001. While so, by Ext. P6 letter, the Government of India forwarded the applications of 30 applicants for freedom fighters' pension to the Accountant General, Kerala, in which the petitioner's name was included as Sl. No. 15. The petitioner submitted Ext. P7 reminder dated 29/03/1993 to the 1st respondent Government of India seeking pension. The petitioner represented to the Vice President of India also. Ultimately, the petitioner filed WP (C) No. 37145/2008, in which by Ext. P14 judgment, this Court directed consideration of the petitioner's claim for pension under the SSS Pension Scheme in respect of the jail sufferings of her husband in the Indian freedom struggle. Pursuant thereto, the matter was considered by the District Collector, Palakkad who, by Ext. P15, addressed to the Government of Kerala, recommended the petitioner's case for SSS pension. Based on the same, by Ext. P11 dated 04/05/2009, the Government also recommended the case of the petitioner for pension under the SSS Pension Scheme. But, the Government of India, by Ext. P17 order dated. 30/07/2009, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the CPCs produced by the petitioner are not acceptable under the scheme as the certifier's own imprisonment suffering is less than one year. The petitioner is challenging the said order in this writ petition.