Orissa HC Rules It’s Too Much to Expect Cogent Proof of Incarceration, Orders Freedom Fighters’ Pension for 100-Year-Old
Pranav B Prem
In a recent judgment, the Orissa High Court underscored the importance of adopting a humane and liberal approach while considering claims under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The Court, in the case of Chakradhar Pradhan v. Union of India & Another, directed the authorities to sanction the freedom fighter’s pension to a 100-year-old petitioner despite the lack of stringent documentary evidence.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Chakradhar Pradhan, claimed to have participated in India’s freedom struggle, including remaining underground and being imprisoned in connection with the Praja Mandal Movement during the early 1940s. His claim for freedom fighters’ pension was denied by the authorities due to insufficient documentary proof, as required by the scheme's guidelines.
The petitioner relied on an affidavit sworn by a co-prisoner who attested to his incarceration during the freedom struggle. Despite this, the authorities rejected the claim, citing the petitioner’s inability to meet the eligibility criteria of at least six months of imprisonment or being underground under specified conditions.
Key Observations by the Court
Justice Sashikanta Mishra emphasized that the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme is not merely a compensatory measure but a means to honor and mitigate the sufferings of those who made sacrifices during the freedom struggle. Highlighting the need for a liberal approach, the Court remarked: “It would be too much to expect the petitioner to produce clear-cut or cogent proof regarding his incarceration nearly 80 years ago.”
The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s advanced age and the practical challenges in obtaining records from that era. It noted that the authorities themselves had failed to provide jail records from 1941-42, thereby leaving the petitioner in a precarious situation.
Reliance on Precedents
The Court extensively referred to Supreme Court judgments, including Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and Kamalbai Sinkar v. State of Maharashtra, which stressed the importance of adopting a "rational and non-technical approach" in cases under such schemes. The Supreme Court had previously held that claims under the scheme should be evaluated on the basis of probabilities rather than strict standards of proof.
In the instant case, the petitioner presented sufficient circumstantial evidence, including a co-prisoner’s affidavit, to substantiate his participation in the freedom struggle. The Court also took into account his reputation as a freedom fighter in his locality and the acknowledgment by public representatives.
Judgment and Directions
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court directed the authorities to:
1. Sanction the freedom fighter’s pension to the petitioner from the date of his application.
2. Disburse all arrears within one month, considering the petitioner’s advanced age.
The Court made it clear that its judgment was not a precedent for relaxing the scheme’s requirements universally but was specific to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Cause Title: Chakradhar Pradhan v. Union of India and Another
Case No: W.P.(C) No. 23220 of 2013
Date: December-23-2024
Bench: Justice Sashikanta Mishra
[Read/Download order]
