PABAN SWAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Application has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for setting aside the decision taken by the Union of India not to extend the benefit of Freedom Fighter's Pension to the petitioner as well as other orders passed vide Annexures -4, 5, 6 and 7.

(2.) ON receiving Rule a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India strongly repudiating the averments/ allegations made in different paragraphs of the Writ Application. It is stated that the petitioner applied for Freedom Fighter's Pension under the S.S.S. Pension Scheme in 1981, inter alia, taking the stand that he had undergone jail suffering during the yeas 1939 -42 on account of freedom movement. In support of such assertion, the petitioner submitted the certificates of two co -prisoners, being Sri Madan Mohan Dash and Sri Muralidhar Panda. On verification the said application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not produced any acceptable evidence in favour of his jail suffering and also because the certificates were not from eligible persons. When the matter stood thus, on 15.7.87 the State Government forwarded the application for the petitioner for award of Freedom Fighter's Pension along with the Personal Knowledge Certificates. His case was then re -examined and again rejected on 18.11.1988 on the ground that the petitioner had not produced any official documents to prove his involvement in the G.R. Case No. 55/77 of 1942 and further the authenticity of the Personal Knowledge Certificates produced by him could not be accepted without verification. It appears on 5.1.1988 the State Government once again recommended the case of the petitioner for claimed jail suffering from 11.10.1942 to 26.5.1943 in Camp Jail at Nayagarh and forwarded his application along with a copy of Police report dtd. 25.5.68 produced by the petitioner in support of his claim of imprisonment for seven months and fifteen days in connection with G.R. Case No. 55/77 of 1942. On the basis of such recommendation S.S.S. Pension was sanctioned to the petitioner subject to review at a later stage. It is stated in the counter affidavit that a number of fictitious applications were filed, inter alia, praying for extending the benefit under the S.S.S. Pension Scheme by production of false and fabricated records taking advantage of the fact that most of the records of pre -independent days were not available. In order to check such fictitious claim by persons who were not otherwise entitled to receive S.S.S. Pension, the Union of India set up a sub -committee to enquire into each application under the Chairmanship of prominent Freedom Fighter Late Padma Charan Samantsinghar. After enquiry the sub -committee found that the police report basing upon which the benefit of pension was extended in favour of the petitioner was entirely fabricated one. Verification of the records of G.R. Case No. 55/77 of 1942 revealed that the petitioner was an accused in the said case. The Sub -Collector, Nayagarh also after scrutinizing the documents intimated that no such certificate in the form of an information chart appeared to have been issued from his office on the alleged date. It was also found that there were no records with regard to existence of any Camp Jail at Nayagarh during pre -independent period. A copy of the report has been annexed to the counter affidavit as annexure. The State Government after careful consideration of the report suspended the Freedom Fighter's Pension of the petitioner. The Union of India also after perusing the recommendation and other materials available before it and on being satisfied that the documents of G.R. Case Nos. 55/77 of 1942 were fabricated and created for the purpose of raising the claim for pension took a decision to suspend the pension granted in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) ON the other hand, Ms. Mohanty, Learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India, forcefully submitted that on enquiry the authorities came to know that there was no Camp Jail at Nayagarh and the documents of G.R. Case filed in support of the petitioner's jail suffering were fabricated ones. It is further submitted that a perusal of the original documents with the certified copies thereof, clearly reveals that the name of the petitioner does not find place in the original records. According to Ms. Mohanty the claim of the petitioner with regard to his undergoing jail suffering cannot be accepted on the ground that such claim varied from time to time, inasmuch as in the application filed in the year 1981 the petitioner claimed to have undergone jail suffering during the years 1939 -42 while in his 1987 petition he claimed to have undergone jail suffering in the year 1939 only. To add to it, in 1993 he claimed to have undergone jail suffering from 11.10.42 to 26.5.43. Thus, the petitioner himself was not sure from which date to which date he had undergone jail suffering. In view of the aforesaid infirmities in his applications and the findings arrived at by the authorities after conducting enquiry that the documents produced by petitioner were fabricated, the authorities rightly suspended the pension of the petitioner and the Writ Application is not maintainable.