Soumitra Pal, J. - (1.) The petitioner made an application for the grant of Freedom Fighter Pension (for short 'Pension') on 12.7.81 under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for short 'scheme'). Along with the said application the petitioner enclosed the recommendations of two recognized freedom fighters. The Superintendent of Police, D.I.B., Midnapore on 22.8.89 forwarded a report regarding the role of the petitioner during freedom movement. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was recommended, for grant of pension after being forwarded by the S.A.C./D.L.A.C. on the basis of suffering from 1939 to 1946 supported by a report issued by S.P., D.I.B., Midnapore. Since the verification and entitlement to pension report was not received by the Central Government, the petitioner moved the High Court. The High Court by an order dated 4.1.96 directed the State to send a duplicate copy of the recommendation to the Central Government and "the Central Government was directed to dispose of the matter within three months of the receipt of such duplicate copy of the recommendation upon notice to the petitioner." However by an order dated 6.8.96 the application for pension was rejected but it was mentioned that the Government of India was, however, prepared to reconsider the case, if the petitioner produced evidence from official records in support of the claimed suffering and a certificate from the State Government indicating that the record produced is genuine, relates to the petitioner and the suffering was in connection with freedom struggle. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 6.8.96 the petitioner again moved a writ petition which was disposed of directing the State to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law if the petitioner produced all the relevant documents in support of his claim and if the State was satisfied, then the matter shall be referred to the Central Government to decide it in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the recommendation from the State Government by passing a reasoned order.
(2.) As directed by the High Court, an order dated 31.5.99 was passed which was sent to the Government of India for taking a final decision in the matter.
(3.) However, the respondent No.5 by a letter dated 14.3.2000 informed the petitioner that as the copy of the Court record submitted in support of the suffering of the petitioner could not be verified, the case could be considered further after receiving the verification report from S.D.O., Tamluk. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 by a letter dated 10.5.2000 requested the respondent No.5 for reconsidering the case of the petitioner and for sending a revised final recommendation to the Ministry so that a final decision in compliance with the Court order could be taken. It appears that the respondent No.2 by an order dated 12.6.2001 rejected the application of the grant of pension. Being aggrieved the writ petitioner has moved this writ application.;