ANIL KRISHNA SARKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondents to grant freedom fighters pension under the provision of the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme, 1972 to the petitioner with effect from March, 1976.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he was a member of a congress Committee at Chanpur during the struggle for Indian independence, for which he took part in the civil disobedience movement at the call of Mahatma Gandhi and violated the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereupon he was arrested along with other Congress volunteers and sent to Chanpur Jail Hazat. The Sub-divisional Judicial magistrate, chanpur found him guilty and convicted and sentenced him to suffer 9(nine) months R.I. in 1942, whereafter he was sent to Comilla district Jail for serving out his sentence. It is the further case of the petitioner that after his release from commilla District Jail, he returned at home at chanpur for a period of three months in the year 1943. As a freedom fighter and one who had undergone imprisonment for taking part in the independence movement, he is entitled to the pension payable to the living freedom fighters in terms of the Freedom Fighters' pension scheme. He accordingly applied for grant of the aforesaid pension by submitting all the requisite documents to the respondent. After processing his application, the respondent No. 1 sanc tioned on 11.01.1975 the freedom fighter pension @ Rs. 200/- per month with effect from 15.08.1972 vide the letter dated 29.01.1975 addressed to him (Annexure-2). It is further stated by the petitioner that after February, 1976 his pension was suspended on flimsy grounds. This prompted him and other similarly situated parties to institute a representative suit before the learned Munsiff being Tile Suit No. 158 of 1987. The learned Munsiff disposed of the case by directing the State Government to set up a review committee for scrutinizing the case of all freedom fighters whose pension had been suspended and for making necessary recommendation thereon. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 issued the latter dated 09.01.1989 to the petitioner for production of documentary evidence in terms of the guidelines given therein. The petitioner is stated to have promptly submitted all the requisite documents with a forwarding letter, which is at Annexure-5. According to the petitioner, thought his case was recommended by the respondent No. 2, the respondent No.1 arbitrarily did not act upon the said recommendation even though he submitted the following documents : Certificate dated 10.02.1971 issued by the Sub-Divisional officer, Central Zone, Agartala certifying that he is a freedom fighter and certificates to that effect by M.L.A. and co-prisoner, who is a Tamrapatra holder. It is the case of the petitioner that despite submitting all the requisite papers and the assurance held out by the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 1 refused to sanction the pension till date. According to the petitioner, this Court in the judgment dated 03.04. 1996 in Civil Rule No. 339 of 1994 (Anath Bandhu Saha Vs. Union of India & Am:), in a similar case, had directed the Union of India to pay pension to the dependant wife of the freedom fighter concerned. As a person similarly situated, contends the petitioner, he is also entitled to similar direction and, as such, appropriate direction be issued by this Court for enabling him to receive the freedom fighter pension.

(3.) The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 resisted the writ petition and filed separate counter affidavits. The respondent No. 1 in its counter affidavit stated that the respondent No. 2 in the year 1976 recommended suspension of the pension to the petitioner since he could not produce the relevant documents and that it was on the basis of the said recommendation that his pension was suspended. It is further stated by the respondent No. 1 that thereafter in 1978, the Government of Tripura formed a new Advisory Committee to review the cases where the pensions already sanctioned have been suspended and that this Committed also did not recommend restoration of the pension to the petitioner. In the counter affidavit of the respondent No. 2, he questions the very maintainability of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner on the ground of laches since the cause of action had arisen way back in 1975 when his provisional pension was suspended. In addition to adopting the contention of the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 2 stated that the petitioner could not produce documentary evidence in support of his application despite giving him 21 days by the Review Committee. After carefully examining the case of the petitioner by the scrutiny committee, it was found that the committee could not recommend his case for grant of pension but the matter was referred to the respondent No.1 for necessary action. According to the respondent No. 2, the President of India can always review the grant of provisional pension to the petitioner and when the petitioner was found not eligible for want of requisite documents to support his claim, the rejection of his pension was perfectly in order. The respondent No. 2 also asserted that the certificate at Annexure-6, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Central Zone, Agartala is not a certificate contemplated under the scheme as finally decided in Title Suit No. 158 of 1987 in which the petitioner was a party and that the certificate was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer without making any enquiry and that too on an incident occurring outside this country. The said respondent also pointed out that Shri Priya Bandhu Bhattacharjee, who issued the certificate did not say that the petitioner was his co-prisoner and that, in any case, such a certificate did not fulfill the requirement of the Scheme. Similarly, the said respondent contended that Mr. Pramodh Dasgupta, M.L.A., who issued one of the certificates, was not the co-prisoner of the petitioner and, as such, such certificate could not be acted upon. The respondent, therefore, prays that the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed in limine.