IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17868 of 2009 1. SUBHASH SINGH @ SUVAS SINGH S/O LATE BASGIT SINGH R/O VILL.- BALAURA, POST- UPHARA, P.S. KARPI, DISTT.- ARWAL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE UNDER SECRETARY, HOME (SPECIAL) DEPARTMENT, FREEDOM FIGHTER CELL, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 4. THE JOINT SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, FREEDOM FIGHTER DIVISION, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET NEW DELHI-3 5. THE UNDER SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, FREEDOM FIGHTER DIVISION, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI-3 ----------- 2. 11.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner claims grant of freedom fighters pension for which he is stated to have applied on 25.7.1991. It is his case that the Superintendent, Sub Jail, Jehanabad by letter No. 394 dated 30.5.1997 confirmed his incarceration. When the pension was still not forthcoming the petitioner under wrong advice moved the Consumer Court at Jehanabad in Case No. 154 of 2003. The Consumer Court also held that the petitioner was a fit case for grant of the same. He represented thereafter to the Union of India and the authorities to no avail. On 16.4.2008, he received a communication from the Union of India to submit 2 his application through proper channel that is the State Government along with necessary recommendation. The submission is that the State Government is sitting over his application despite having held enquiry depriving him of the freedom fighters pension. The counter affidavit of the Union of India reiterates the aforesaid position to aver that it is not averse to the consideration of the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law after the application of the petitioner routed through the State Government along with the necessary recommendation is received. The writ petition was filed on 17.12.2009 after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General, the second to facilitate quick filing of a counter affidavit by the State officials to assist in timely dispensation of justice. Today when the matter is taken up, counsel for the State prays for time to file counter affidavit. The Court declines such belated prayer. The Court, however, put a question to the counsel for the petitioner on the grounds of delay in the facts as urged by him. He relies upon a decision in A.I.R. 1993 SC 2127 (Mukund Lal Bhandari & 3 Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.), more particularly at Paragraph-4 holding as follows:- “4. As regards the sufficiency of the proof, the Scheme itself mentions the documents which are required to be produced before the Government. It is not possible for this Court to scrutinize the documents which according to the petitioners, they had produced in support of their and pronounce upon their genuineness. It is the function of the Government to do so. We would, therefore, direct accordingly, As regards the contention that the petitioners had filed their applications after the date prescribed in that behalf, we are afraid that the Government stand is not justifiable. It is common knowledge that those who participated in the freedom struggle either at the national level or in the erstwhile Nizam State, are scattered all over the country and most of them may even be inhabiting the remotest parts of the rural areas. What is more, almost all of them must have now grown pretty old, if they are alive. Where the freedom fighters are not alive and their widows and the unmarried daughters have to prefer claims, the position may still be worse with regard to their knowledge of the prescribed date. What is more, if the Scheme has been introduced with the genuine desire to assist and honour those who had given the best part of their life for the country, it ill-behoves the government to raise pleas of limitation against such claims. In fact, the Government, if it is possible for them to do so, should find out the freedom fighters or their dependents and approach them with the pension instead of requiring them to make applications for the same. That would be the true spirit of working out such Schemes. The Scheme has rightly been renamed in 1985 as the Swatantra 4 Sainik Samman Pension Scheme to accord with its object. We, therefore, cannot countenance the plea of the Government that the claimants would only be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme if they made applications before a particular date notwithstanding that in fact they had suffered the imprisonment and made the sacrifices and were thus otherwise qualified to receive the benefit. We are, therefore, of the view that whatever the date on which the claimants make the applications, the benefit should be made available to them. The date prescribed in any past or future notice inviting the claims, should be regarded more as a matter of administrative convenience than as a rigid- time-limit. Coming now to the last contention advanced on behalf of the Government, viz., that the benefit of the Scheme should be extended only from the date the claimant produces the required proof of his eligibility to the pension, we are of the view that this contention can be accepted only partially. There have been cases, as in the present case, where some of the claimants had made their applications but either without the necessary documentary proof or with insufficient proof. It is unreasonable to expect that the freedom fighters and their dependents would be readily in possession of the required documents. In the very nature of things, such documents have to be secured either from the jail records or from persons who have been named in the Scheme to certify the eligibility. Thus, the claimants have to rely upon third parties. The records are also quite old. They are bound to take their own time to be available. It is, therefore, unrealistic to expect that the claimants would be in a position to produce documents within a fixed time limit. What is necessary in matters of such claims is to ascertain the factum of the 5 eligibility. The point of time when it is ascertained, is unimportant. The prescription of a rigid time-limit for the proof of the entitlement in the very nature of things is demeaning to the object of the Scheme. We are, therefore, of the view that neither the date of the application nor the date on which the required proof is furnished should make any difference to the entitlement of the benefit under the Scheme. Hence, once the application is made, even if it is unaccompanied by the requisite eligibility data, the date on which it is made should be accepted as the date of the preferment of the claim whatever the date on which the proof of eligibility is furnished.” To this Court that completely answer the aspect of delay in the nature of for reasons discussed by the Supreme Court. It appears from the letter of the Superintendent, Sub Jail that the petitioner had applied for grant of freedom fighters pension before the State authorities. The matter still remains pending before them. The petitioner has Annexed copies of the documents submitted by him to the State Government as Annexures to the writ application. Given his advanced age of 82 years today as mentioned in the affidavit in support of the writ application, this Court certainly cannot expect him to go running from one office to another or from one desk to another of the State officials. It shall be 6 the obligation of the State respondents to trace out his application along with annexures to the writ application seeking his clarification by going to his door and then forward the necessary recommendation in accordance with law to the Union of India within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of this order before respondent no. 2, whereafter the Union of India is expected to take a final decision in the matter, as the circumstance may warrant based on the recommendation received from the State within a maximum period of one month from the date of such receipt. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)