SANTOSHKUMAR SURENDRANATH SHAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Ms Suman Khare waives service of Rule for the respondent. At the request of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The petitioner is constrained to file this petition since his longstanding request to permit him to avail the benefit of Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme has not been responded to positively by the respondent. It is the say of the petitioner that during the Quit India Movement he had honoured the call given by Mahatma Gandhi and due to his activity to participation in the Freedom Movement he had to go underground since a warrant to arrest him was issued by Bagura Police Station of erstwhile East Bengal, which now forms part of Bangla Desh. The petitioner remained underground for the period from 12th October 1942 till May 1943. It is also his say that in the year 1946 he participated in the Novakhali Satyagraha with Mahatma Gandhi and remained as his representative of Khadi Pratishta for two months. It is his say that after the Independence in 1949 the country was divided into two parts and the region of Bagura forming part of erstwhile East Bengal became part of East Pakistan, which is presently known as Bangladesh. According to the petitioner, since then he has been staying in Ahmedabad and has permanently settled down in the City. This was done in accordance with the advice given by Shri Saumendranath Tagore, cousin of Shri Rabindranath Tagore. It is his say that he worked with several textile mills in Ahmedabad and lastly he was employed with Bharat Suryoday Mills, but with the closure of the Mill he became unemployed. He, therefore, made an application on 20th March 1992 to the Government of India for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension under Swatantra Senani Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. According to him, to his great misfortune, the only bread earner in the petitioner's family, that is, his son expired in the year 1986 and his plight since then has become very miserable. It is his say that in the month of April 1997 he applied to the State Government for grant of pension and the State Government has granted him pension with effect from 4.11.1997 of Rs.350 subject to the sanction of the pension by the Government of India which is only income today. According to the petitioner, the respondent Union of India has rejected the claim of the petitioner for pension despite requisite compliance of the norms, hence he has approached this Court by filing this petition.

(3.) The respondent has opposed the petition by filing affidavit-in-reply. It is the say of the respondent that the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria as laid down in the Scheme and therefore he is not entitled to receive the pension. According to the respondent, the primary evidence to substantiate his claim has not been produced by the petitioner. He has not even produced the Non Availability Certificate of this evidence issued by the State Government. Hence, his claim cannot be considered and it has been rejected accordingly.