Ashim Kumar Roy, J. - (1.) The writ-petitioner being aggrieved by non-consideration of her prayer for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 by the respondent authorities moved this Court invoking its Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction.
(2.) It is the case of the writ-petitioner that her husband Late Prohlad Chandra Khan was a freedom fighter and was detained at Hijili Special Jail, Midnapore as he took part in Salt Movement at the call of Mahatma Gandhi. It is the further case of the writ-petitioner in spite of his best efforts, her late husband during his lifetime could not obtain jail certificate from the concerned authority. Although the husband of the writ-petitioner applied before the jail authority for issuance of jail certificate but the jail authority expressed their inability to furnish the same on the ground the relevant records are not traceable. In this regard attention of this Court was drawn to Annexure 'P-I' to the writ petition. It is further submitted after the death of her husband, the writ-petitioner approached the respondent authorities, more particularly the respondent no. 3 through his lawyer for sanctioning freedom fighter pension. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India draws the attention of this Court to the provisions of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 and submitted that when a prayer for freedom fighter pension is made in terms of the "said scheme" it is necessary that applicant shall submit along with his application, the certificate from jail authority and in absence thereof the certificate from two co-prisoners or from one co-prisoner if he or she be a sitting M.P. or M.L.A. or an ex-M.P. or ex-M.L.A., but in the case in hand no such document was submitted to the concerned authority by the writ-petitioner along with her application for pension under the said scheme. He, therefore, submitted in absence of those documents no steps can be taken by the respondent authorities for sanctioning her prayer for pension.
(3.) I have given my due consideration to the rival submissions of the parties, in my opinion to arrive at a just decision as regards to the question arises in this writ-application, it is utmost necessary the relevant provisions of the said scheme be first taken into consideration, which runs like this; (A) Imprisonment/detention: Certificate from the jail authority, District Magistrate or the State Government concerned, indicating period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release and reasons for release, ,a non-availability of records certificate (NARC) from the authorities concerned along with co-prisoners' certificates (CPC) as under: (i) Two co-prisoners' certificates from the freedom fighter pensioners who had a proven jail suffering of one year. Or (ii) One co-prisoner's certificate from a sitting MP or MLC or from an ex-MP or an ex-MLA specifying his jail period and that of the applicant (Annexure 1 in the application form). (B) Documentary evidence by way of court's/Government's orders proclaiming the applicant as an offender, announcing an award on his head or for his arrest or ordering his detention. In the absence of such certificates from official records, a non- availability of records certificate from the authorities concerned along with a certificate from a prominent freedom fighter who had undergone imprisonment for a period of at least two years or more.";