- (1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the State Government has not recommended the petitioner's case for freedom fighter's pension on the ground that the petitioner could not produce any records in support of the petitioner's claim though the same order finds that the official records pertaining to the period are not available. In the absence of official records being found, it is difficult to accept that the application would be rejected on the ground of the applicant's inability to furnish any document in support of the claim. The applicant in this case has relied on at least one certificate of an acknowledged freedom fighter that endorses the petitioner's claim. It was, in such circumstances, incumbent on the State to look at other documents in the absence of official jail or police station records. As to what other records can be looked into appears from a Division Bench judgment of this Court Gajendranath Manhna vs. State of West Bengal, 2010 4 CalHN 4
(2.) There is a further aspect which has to be borne in mind. There are not too many 85 or 90-year olds who claim to be the freedom fighters. The State should be liberal in entertaining the applications from freedom fighters such that a few claimants not entitled to the benefit may be conferred the benefit, but no person who has participated in the freedom struggle should be denied the benefit for lack of records.
(3.) In the light of the above, it is necessary that the State Government should re-consider its decision of October 29, 2013 and unless the State Government finds that the petitioner was actually not involved in the freedom struggle, the State Government should give the petitioner the benefit of doubt and process the claim to be dealt with by the Central Government which should also take a liberal view of the matter.;