SAURAJ KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
LAWS(UTN)-2013-1-76
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on January 03,2013

Sauraj Kumar Rana Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
(2.) The Government of Uttarakhand issued a Government Order on 4.10.2004. According to the said Government Order such persons whose mother and father both are freedom fighters and while undergoing imprisonment for their cause as freedom fighters, the mother gave birth to a child in prison, such new born (who are born in prison) will also be treated as a "freedom fighter" and would be liable to be given freedom fighter's pension by the State Government. Since this order came on 4.10.2004, the petitioner who claims to have born in prison from the parents, who both at the relevant time were undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for the activities of freedom fighter, claimed such a benefit. One such person was the present petitioner.
(3.) It emerges from the letter of the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Jail, Saharanpur that on 22.10.1942 Smt. Shakuntala (mother of the present petitioner) was brought to Haridwar Jail having been convicted and sentenced for one year of imprisonment under Defence of India Regulations and on the same date a medical examination was done and it was found that she was about 8 months pregnant and on the family way. On the next day i.e. 23.10.1942, she was sent to Roorkee lockup. She again joined Haridwar Jail on 15.12.1942 and the records show that on that day she was carrying a male child of 27 days. Therefore, this much is clear that while undergoing imprisonment Smt. Shakuntala Devi i.e. the mother of the present petitioner gave birth to a male child. However, there was one difficulty for giving freedom fighter's pension to the petitioner as in the enquiry it was also discovered that the petitioner has given two dates of his birth. First one is 5.1.1943 which is registered as his date of birth in "Kisan Vidyalaya Inter College, Laksar" and another is 13.8.1945 which is mentioned in "parivar" register. Not only is there is a contradiction in these two dates of birth but from none of these two dates of birth the fact can be established that the petitioner was born between 27.10.1942 and 15.12.1942 in prison! The contention of the State authorities is that in case the petitioner was born in the prison, as he claims, his date of birth should have been in November, 1942.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.