Calcutta High Court Directs Grant of Freedom Fighter’s Pension | Personal Knowledge Certificate by Approved Certifier Held Valid Secondary Evidence Under SSS Pension Scheme
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Calcutta, Single Bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, has allowed a petition concerning eligibility for benefits under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme. The Court set aside the rejection of a pension claim and directed the authorities to release the pension in favor of the petitioner. The Court ordered that the pension be paid under the liberalized scheme with effect from the date of the Court’s order, to be completed within four months. The judgment clarified that a certificate issued by a veteran freedom fighter is a valid document deemed admissible as secondary evidence when official records are not available. The Court observed that the rejection of the pension claim was not justifiable and accordingly allowed the writ petition.
The proceedings arose from a challenge to an order dated March 20, 2024, passed by the Officer on Special Duty and Ex-Officio Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal. That order rejected the petitioner’s eligibility under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, citing the absence of original records and no scope to rescind earlier decisions. The rejection referenced a prior decision of the State Advisory Committee from December 26, 1985, communicated by the Assistant Secretary, Government of West Bengal, in April 1986, which found the certificate produced by the petitioner unacceptable. The reasoning was that the certifier had once certified abscondence on one ground and later altered his account, showing a lack of exact knowledge.
The litigation marked the third round of proceedings in this matter. An earlier writ petition had been filed in 2016, wherein the Court in May 2022 found that the certificate issued by Shri Sushil Kumar Dhara made the petitioner eligible for pension. The Union of India appealed, and the Division Bench in March 2023 modified the order, observing that if official records were not available, certificates from veteran freedom fighters who had themselves undergone imprisonment could suffice. The Division Bench directed the State Government to reconsider the application afresh and, if satisfied, recommend the petitioner’s case to the Union Government.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed another writ in 2023, alleging inaction by the State in complying with the Division Bench’s directions. The Single Bench, in July 2023, set aside the State Government’s decision and directed reconsideration within six weeks. Following non-compliance, a contempt application was filed, but was disposed of after assurances of compliance. Eventually, the O.S.D. and Ex-Officio Joint Secretary rejected the claim again, which led to the present petition.
The petitioner had applied for pension on July 14, 1981, enclosing a Non-Availability of Records Certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Midnapore, and a Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by Shri Sushil Kumar Dhara, an eminent freedom fighter. The Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal had sought confirmation of the certificate’s genuineness in April 1983, and Dhara confirmed it in August 1983. Nevertheless, the State Government declined to recommend the claim in June 1984 on the ground that Dhara had suffered imprisonment of less than five years, as initially required. However, by notification dated August 21, 1984, the requisite period was reduced to two years. The petitioner accordingly submitted that his claim was within the relaxed framework.
Further inquiries in 2015 by the State Government confirmed that no jail records of the petitioner were available, but local enquiry revealed that he was a bona fide freedom fighter who had remained underground between 1942 and 1944 to evade arrest under the guidance of prominent leaders. The authenticity of the certificate issued by Dhara was never disputed. Judicial precedents, including Lichu Bala Ghara v. Union of India and Gajendranath Manna v. State of West Bengal, were cited to affirm that Personal Knowledge Certificates issued by approved certifiers were admissible as secondary evidence in absence of primary records.
The State opposed the claim, contending that the petitioner had altered his stance and that the certificates were contradictory. It argued that there was no supporting evidence to reconsider the matter and maintained that the rejection was justified. The Union of India supported this stance, further contending that the writ petition was not maintainable on account of disputed facts.
The Court recorded that no official record was available to substantiate the petitioner’s claim, but enquiries confirmed him to be a bona fide freedom fighter, though never confined in jail. It stated: “The Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) issued by the approved Certifier; Sushil Kumar Dhara is admissible as secondary evidence in the absence of primary evidence. The said certificate could have been considered by the authority particularly when there is no primary or contrary evidence produced from the side of Respondents.”
The Court further noted: “Certificate issued by him has been considered by the Respondents in many other cases without raising any objection and even the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not interfered with the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Smt Debala Rani Bera (Dead) Represented through legal heirs Kali Krishna Bera & Ors.”
Addressing the rejection, the Court observed: “The respondents rejected the said certificate without any cogent justification. The respondents did not declare the certificate as not genuine because the certifier himself clarified that he had issued the certificate. It was genuine but some mistake was occurred due to inadvertence, same was corrected subsequently. There is no contra evidence transpired from the record to discard the certificate issued by the Certifier in favour the Petitioner.”
The Court added that even if the petitioner was certified as a proclaimed offender or as one against whom detention orders were issued but evaded arrest, both grounds fell within the eligibility provisions of the Scheme. It recorded: “There is no serious doubt about the certificate issued by the certifier. The veracity of the certificate issued by Sushil Kumar Dhara cannot be doubted or established to be a false certificate or the contents of the said certificate are factually incorrect.”
The Court concluded: “In such circumstances, in terms of the scheme, namely clause 9 of the SSS Pension Scheme, 1980, the certificate issued by the veteran freedom fighters is deemed to be a secondary and valid document, which needs to be considered by the Respondents for grant of pension of the petitioner. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the rejection of such prayer of the petitioner is not at all justifiable and same is liable to be set aside.”
The Court allowed the writ petition, stating: “WPA 11008 of 2024 stands allowed without order as to costs.” It directed: “Consequently, the concerned respondents authorities shall pay to the petitioner, freedom fighter’s pension under the liberalised SSS Scheme, with effect from the date of order of this Court within 4 (four) months from the date of communication of this judgment in view of judgment passed in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kaushalaya Devi.”
The Court clarified that the pension would be payable from the date of its order, not from the date of application, citing the Supreme Court’s holding in Kaushalaya Devi: “In other words, the claim was not allowed on the basis of jail certificate produced by the claimant but on the basis of oral statement of some other detenue Hence, we are of the opinion that the pension should be granted from the date of the order and not from the date of the application.”
All connected applications were disposed of, interim orders vacated, and the Court directed that parties act on server copies of the judgment.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ramdulal Manna, Adv.; Mrs. Manju Manna (Dey), Adv.; Mr. Sanyasachi Mondal, Adv.; Mr. Sayan Mukherjee, Adv.; Ms. Payel Khanra, Adv.
For the Union of India: Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya, Adv.; Mr. Pradyut Saha, Adv.
For the State: Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Adv.; Ms. Amrita Panja Moulick, Adv.
Case Title: Narayan Chandra Maiti v. Union of India and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: CHC-AS:1661
Case Number: WPA 11008 of 2024
Bench: Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
