PRABHABATI BHATTACHARJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING denied the freedom fighters pension under the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972 introduced by the Government of India on 25th anniversary of the Independence, the above petitioners have filed the writ petitions seeking direction to the respondent No. 1 the Union of India and the respondent No. 2 (State of Tripura) to allow them the pension under the said scheme and to set aside the communication/decision of the Union of India denying the benefits of this scheme. The facts and law involved in all the writ cases being similar though not same, the issues involved have been taken up for adjudication by a single judgment.

(2.) AS stated above, the Government of India introduced a scheme known as Freedom Fighter's Pension Scheme, 1972 for grant of pension to freedom fighters or in case of death, to their families. There was, however, an income bar for the purpose of eligibility. Those having annual income less than Rs. 5,000/- would be entitled to benefits if they had suffered imprisonment for at least six months for their participation in the freedom struggle. Persons claiming to have suffered imprisonment for six months for the purpose of pension were required to produce prison documents or a certificate from co-prisoner as documentary proof for expeditious disposal of claims. This scheme was replaced by Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme (SSSPS) will effect from 01-08-80 removing the income ceiling and liberalizing the term of imprisonment from six months to three months in case of women freedom fighters and those belonging to SC/st community. The requirement of Jail Certificate or in case of non-availability of such certificate, a co-prisoner's certificate from at least two prominent freedom fighters continued to be the requirement for expeditious sanction of the pension. However, if the freedom fighter issuing the Certificate was an MP, MLA or ex-MP or ex-MLA, then only one certificate from him would serve the purpose. In all the cases in hand, the petitioners claimed that they or, as the case may be, their husband or father had suffered imprisonment in connection with their participation in the freedom struggle. In four of the above writ cases, the petitioners claimed that they were the freedom fighters and suffered imprisonment for six months or more. In eight of the above cases, the petitioners are the wives of the persons claimed to be the freedom fighters, who could not claim the pension during their lifetime. In one case, the children of the freedom fighters are the petitioners. In all these cases, the pension was eventually denied on the ground that the petitioners claims were found to have no basis by the Review Committee and they also failed to produce documentary evidence as required by the Scheme. Most of them obtained certificate from the local Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) though the requirement was Prison's Certificate or Co-Prisoner's Certificate. The factual position of all these cases may now be examined separately and briefly.

(3.) IN W. P. (C) NO. 518 OF 1999 The petitioner Sri Sukharanjan Deb in this case was sanctioned provisional pension, which was later suspended on 24-02-76 by a communication issued from Political Department of the Government of Tripura. At the same time, the petitioner was requested to produce either Jail certificate or co-prisoner's certificate. However, as the required Certificate could not be produced the respondent No. 1 the Union of India finally cancelled the pension of the petitioner on 19-11-93. About 252 petitioner whose pensions were suspended filed a suit (TS No. 158 of 1979) in the Court of Munsiff, Agartala and as per order of that Court a Review Committee was constituted to examine those cases. On review, the Committee recommended restoration of pension in some cases and rejected the claims of others. The petitioner's case did not find favour from the said Review Committee.