Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 365 (ORI)

Pabana Swain v. Union of India

2005-06-20

A.S.NAIDU

body2005
JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : 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 Annexure-4, 5, 6 & 7. According to the petitioner he took part in the freedom movement and suffered imprisonment in Camp Jail at Nayagarh in connection with G.R. Case No.55/77 of 1942 for a period of seven months and fifteen days. It is further stated that the name of the petitioner was duly recommended by the State Government, and the Union of India on being satisfied had sanctioned pension in his favour, but then without any rhyme or reason payment of pension was suspended. Such action according to the petitioner is unjust, illegal and a direction should be issued to the Union of India to extend the benefit of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension (for short S.S.S. Pension) to the petitioner. 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 years 1939-42 on account of freedom movement. In support of such assertion, the petitioner submitted the certifi¬cates of two co-prisoners, being Sri Madan Mohan Dash and Sri Muralidhar Panda. On verification the said application was re¬jected 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 form eligible persons. When the matter stood thus, on 15.7.87 the State Government forwarded the application of 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 docu¬ments to prove his involvement in the G.R. Case No.55/77 of 1942 and further the authenticity of the Personal Knowledge Certifi¬cates produced by him could not be accepted without verification. His case was then re-examined and again rejected on 18.11.1988 on the ground that the petitioner had not produced any official docu¬ments to prove his involvement in the G.R. Case No.55/77 of 1942 and further the authenticity of the Personal Knowledge Certifi¬cates produced by him could not be accepted without verification. It appears on 5.1.1988 the State Government once again recommend¬ed the case of the petitioner for claimed jail suffering form 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 imprison¬ment 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 produc¬tion of false and fabricated records taking advantage of the fact that most of the records of pre-independent days were not avail¬able. 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 re¬vealed 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 form 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 consid¬eration of the report suspended the Freedom Fighter’s Pension of the petitioner. 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 consid¬eration of the report suspended the Freedom Fighter’s Pension of the petitioner. The Union of India also after perusing the recom¬mendation and other materials available before it and on being satisfied that the documents of G.R. Case No. 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. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner disputing the averments made in the counter affidavit. In course of hearing Mr. Parida, learned counsel for the peti¬tioner, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Hiramani Panda v. State of Orissa and another reported in 2002 (II) OLR-252, forcefully submitted that suspension of pro¬vincial pension on the ground that jail records were not avail¬able was not justified. It is further submitted that if the jail records are not available the co-prisoners’ certificates should be taken into consideration as has been specifically stipulated in the Scheme itself. Rejection of a petition only on the ground that the jail records were not available was not just and proper. Mr. Parida also relied upon the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Bhagabat Pradhan v. Union of India and others report¬ed in AIR 2002 Orissa 98 and submitted that while several other persons have been granted S.S.S. Pension basing on the certifi¬cates produced by them as to their jail suffering due to their participation in freedom movement, the petitioner’s case could not be discriminated. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Mohanty, learned counsel appear¬ing for the Union of India, forcefully submitted that on enquiry the authorities came to know that there was no Camp Jail at Naya¬garh 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. 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 form time to time, inasmuch as in the applica¬tion filed in the year 1981 the petitioner claimed to have under¬gone 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 under gone jail suffering form 11.10.42 to 26.5.43. Thus, the petitioner himself was not sure form which date to which date he had under¬gone 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. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. I have also perused the materials. There is no quarrel with regard to the settled legal proposition that in the event docu¬ments with regard to jail suffering are not available, which is natural due to efflux of time, the application filed for Freedom Fighter’s Pension should be considered on the basis of the two certificates granted by co-prisoners who had undergone imprison¬ment for more than the period stipulated in the Scheme itself. Rejection of an application for grant of Freedom Fighter’s Pen¬sion only on the ground that the documents were not available was not just and proper. Law is also well settled that if the author¬ities have granted Freedom Fighter’s Pension to certain person on the basis of a set of documents, the same benefits should not be denuded to others on the ground that the documents are not trust¬worthy. The case at hand, however, did not satisfy any of the afore¬said criteria. Here is a case where the name of the petitioner does not find place in the original records of G.R. Case No.55/77 of 1942 which are very much available. Verification on the certi¬fied copies revealed that the same were fabricated. The case at hand, however, did not satisfy any of the afore¬said criteria. Here is a case where the name of the petitioner does not find place in the original records of G.R. Case No.55/77 of 1942 which are very much available. Verification on the certi¬fied copies revealed that the same were fabricated. The said facts throw a cloud of suspicion in the mind of the Court with regard to the genuineness of the claim made by the petitioner. Even otherwise the petitioner was not sure about the period of his own jail suffering. In each claim petition he came up with different periods which revealed that he was making prevaricating state¬ments. The averments made in the counter affidavit have not been repudiated by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder affidavit. Thus the same are to be accepted applying the principle of non-traverse. 6. In view of the aforesaid cumulative facts and circumstances and as the materials produced before this Court clearly reveal that the certificates produced by the petitioner were not true copies of the originals and had been manipulated, this Court feel that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and thus no relief can be granted in his favour. Accordingly, the Writ Application is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Application dismissed.