AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is 96 years old. He has knocked the door of this Court at this age, as the respondents refused to consider his request for grant of
freedom fighter pension on the reason that the petitioner has not submitted jail certificate in support of his jail suffering during the freedom struggle
movement.
The case of the petitioner is that he participated in the freedom struggle, more particularly in the Quit India Movement and was arrested and
thereafter, convicted to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment. Thus, the petitioner was confined from 15.04.1943 to 24.09.1943.
In support of such claim, the petitioner has obtained two certificates from the co-prisoners, namely, A.M.Laxmanan and A.C.Periyasamy. Both
those co-prisoners are recipients of freedom fighter pension and they have specifically stated in the certificates that the petitioner was imprisoned
during the above-said period in pursuant to the freedom struggle. Apart from producing those two certificates from the co-prisoners, the petitioner
has also filed a non-availablity certificate issued by the Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Bellary, dated 04.07.2007, stating that the jail records
for the period from 15.04.1943 to 24.09.1943 are completed torn out and therefore, he is unable to issue the jail certificate to the petitioner for the
above-said period. When these overwhelming documents are filed by the petitioner in support of his claim seeking for freedom fighter pension,
there is absolutely no justification on the part of the first respondent in rejecting the same, merely because the petitioner has not produced the jail
certificate. In the absence of a jail certificate, the co-prisoner''s certificate will definitely stand to speak the truth and hence, the same has to be
considered and accepted as a evidence of jail suffering so long as the genuineness of such certificate is not in dispute. In this case, the respondents
have not doubted about the genuineness of the co prisoners'' certificates, nor they dispute the non-availability certificate issued by the jail authority.
Thus, it is evident that the impugned order is an out come of total nonapplication of mind. Therefore, I find every justification in allowing the writ
petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to issue the freedom fighter
pension to the petitioner from the date of his application, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
respondents are directed to serve such order at the doorstep of the petitioner, apart from communicating the same through other mode of service.
No costs.