A.Lala, J. - (1.) -All the writ petitions are arising out of a common question i.e. grant of freedom fighter's pensions. Therefore, all the writ petitioners were directed to be taken for an analogous hearing to avoid prolixity and multiplications of proceedings. Although the common question is in respect of grant of freedom fighters' pensions but cases are categorised into three categories: (a) cases which have been recommended by the State and accepted by the Union but subsequently refused to grant pension; (b) cases recommended by the State accepted by the Union but later turned down by the Union; (c) cases which have not yet been considered or recommended by the State or nipped in the bud for any cause which according to them are not fit and proper.
(2.) In most of the cases I find that those are related to District Midnapore, State of West Bengal leaving aside few others. The Court cannot avoid but to take judicial notice that District Midnapore of the State of West Bengal was hot belt of freedom fighters' movement in the pre-independence period. History says so. Both violent and non-violent movements mostly motivated from there. The nature of violent and non-violent movements were not same or similar in nature. In a violent movement, an individual or a group of persons must be identified in an action. But in a non-violent movement, where a mass of people involved in an agitation all of them must not be identified. But for the sake of justice, it cannot be said that persons who were either involved in violent or non-violent movement but escaped from the notice or knowledge of the then authority are not freedom fighters at all. Therefore, in coming to an appropriate conclusion and in rendering equitable justice, the background of the freedom fight movement of the country should be taken note by the Court of law. There are reasons for doing so. The nature of the then police action and freedom fighters' action were different from now which cannot be visualised by sitting in an administrative arm chair in an air-conditioned room of free India. Therefore, one has to go back to the period. When there was no independence, freedom fighters were treated as criminals in the eye of law but immediately after independence such criminals become national heroes. Simultaneously, British polices who made them criminals are no longer there after independence. Some of the police personnels who did not change their mind-set immediately after independence gradually accustomed with the situation of free India. By the passage of time the rigour of the police activities in respect of so called pre-independence criminals became diminished or vanished. As a consequential effect, value of documents in connection with freedom fighters, if any, in the custody of the police become less important or not important in comparison to those days. The slackness of maintaining the documents cannot be said to be intentional but casual due to non-existence of the causes. I mean to say that it was a transitional period. Nobody ever thought that such documents will carry any value in future in free India as a piece of evidence for the purposes of granting freedom fighter's pension.
(3.) Long after the independence, when the political leaders sitting in the Parliament or legislative houses started thinking to do a little favour to their known and unknown colleagues of pre-independence period a problem arose. Such problem was not aggravated when the same was restricted only on giving 'Tamra Patra' to them as a token of respect. But the same was aggravated from when Government started thinking to give certain financial benefits to them. Financial involvement comparison to number of citizens and number of freedom fighters of the country is so negligible that administration should not proceed more in refusing but granting it. The present policy of the Government by liberalising the scheme speaks that refusal will be less than granting it. Inspite of the same if refusal rise more than granting it there should be clear conflict between the policy and action. If the action of the administration is contrary to the policy of the policy makers, the same is improper which likely to be interfered with by way of judicial review.;