Ghose, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 23rd September, 2009 passed by the Hon'ble First Court allowing the writ Petition in favour of the writ Petitioner.
(2.) THE writ Petitioner filed the said writ Petition claiming pension under the scheme known as Swatantrata Sanik Samiman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as Scheme) by a judgment and/or order dated 23rd September, 2009 passed by the Hon'ble First Court when His Lordship was pleased to hold as follows : Thus, having considered the above authorities and the relevant provisions of the scheme and the impugned order in question, the impugned order is set aside. THE respondents or rather the concerned respondents are directed to grant freedom fighter's pension to the writ petitioner under the provisions of Swantrata Sanik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 with effect from the date of his application for obtaining pension i.e. 18th August, 1981. THE petitioner, needless to mention, shall be entitled to pension in arrears since the date of his application, namely 18th August, 1981 within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of his application, namely 18th August, 1981 till the date the pension in arrears are actually paid to the petitioner. Since the freedom fighter, namely the petitioner herein had to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court more than once for obtaining his legitimate pension challenging the merit less orders of rejections of the authority concerned in this case for grant of freedom fighter pension in his favour, the petitioner is entitled to the payment of cost assessed at Rs. 10,000/- and such cost shall be paid to the petitioner by the 1st and/or 2nd respondents herein within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. THE writ petition is disposed of. THEre will be no order as to costs." Being aggrieved, this appeal has been field by the Union of India. The facts of the case briefly are as follows : On 1st August, 1980 the Government of India decided to grant benefit of pension to the freedom fighters who had dedicated their lives during the freedom movement. A scheme for the purpose of granting such pension, a scheme has been introduced known as Swatantrata Sanik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (scheme) to the freedom fighters. In these circumstances in the year 1982 the writ petitioner/respondent applied for pension under the said Scheme on the basis of a personal knowledge certificate issued by an eminent certifier Hiralal Maity of Midnapore District. The District Magistrate of the said District stated that it records of the sufferings of freedom movement from 1930 to 1946 are not available for the purpose of consideration of the application for grant of benefit of pension to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner's application was rejected by the Union Government on the ground that the certificate which was issued by Hirarlal Maity cannot be accepted as evidence. The certificate was not certified by an eligible certifier for grant of such certificates. The said communication was challenged by the writ petitioner in CO. No. 21445 (W) of 1995 which was disposed of by the High Court directing the Central Government to consider the application of the writ petitioner afresh as Hiralal Maity was accepted as an eligible certifier.
(3.) THE Under Secretary issued a letter in the year 1996 informing that although the recommendation has been made cannot be accepted by the Government of India on the grounds that records relating to the sufferings are available more particularly in the Crime Note Book and thereby personal knowledge certificate issued by Hiralal Maity cannot be accepted. The writ petitioner again moved a writ petition being W.P. No. 12044 (W) of 1998 before this Court and on 23rd July, 2002 the said writ petition was disposed of by the Court quashing the letter of communication issued by the Under Secretary, Government of India. The Court further directed the authority to consider the case of the writ petitioner afresh in the light of recommendation of the State Government keeping in view of the noble object of the scheme and in compliance with the judgment and in the light of the decision of Mukundalal Bhandari v. Union of India reported in AIR 1993 SC 2127.;