THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.6020 of 2013 Dated : 11.12.2014 Between:
Kalidindi Venkata Soma Rama Raju, S/o.Sita Rama Raju, Aged about 86 yrs, Occu : Former Underground Freedom Fighter, R/o.H.No.27-18-6, A.S.R. Nagar, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, A.P.
.. Petitioner And Union of India, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi –110 003 & 2 others.
.. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.6020 of 2013 ORDER :
The petitioner claims that he had participated in Quit India Movement held on 17.08.1947, and taken active part in the Freedom struggle. He was instrumental in participating in destruction of Sub-Collectors Office, Junction Railway Station in Bhimavaram and was underground for a period of ten months from 18.08.1942 to 20.05.1943. Later he was caught by the police on 21.05.1943 and was in custody till 24.08.1943. He was aged 16 years at that time. The petitioner claims that he was acquitted by the then Additional District Magistrate, West Godavari District. The petitioner also claims that he has actively participated in the “Congress Satyagraha” movement. According to the petitioner he along with Dandu Narayana Raju, Puchapalli Sundaraiah, Kalidindi Peda Subba Raju, Garapati Satyanarayana, Kothapalli Venkata Raju, and others participated in the Movement.
2. The petitioner filed application for grant of pension as per the Pension Scheme launched by the Central Government known as “Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (Scheme 1980)”. The petitioner obtained personal knowledge certificates issued by the renewed freedom fighters i.e., Garapati Satyanarayana of Eluru and Gokaraju Sree Rama Raju of Juvvalapalem. The claim of the petitioner for grant of pension is yet to be fructified till date. Aggrieved by the inordinate delay in processing the grant of pension, under the said Scheme, the petitioner instituted this writ petition seeking declaration against not granting the pension as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
3. The claim of the petitioner is opposed by the Central Government. According to the Counter Affidavit deposed by D.K.Goel, on behalf of the Union of India, no such proposals are received by the Central Government so far from the State Government recommending the case of the petitioner for grant of pension under the said Scheme. On 07.03.2013, a letter was addressed by the Central Government requesting the State Government of Andhra Pradesh (erstwhile State) to provide copy of the claim application/representations of the petitioner along with supporting documents/enclosures and mandatory verification–cum-entitlement to pension report of the State Government. According to the deponent so far no such proposal as required are received, therefore, no issue is pending consideration with the Central Government.
4. The Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent deposed by Bhaskar Katamneni on 03.11.2014. The deponent admits that the petitioner has submitted personal knowledge certificates of Garapati Satyanarayana of Eluru and Sri Gokaraju Sree Rama Raju of Juvvalapalem, who are the freedom fighters and pensioners. A report was submitted to Government on 20.05.1995. The Government in their Memo dated 22.11.2008 has informed to furnish fresh information as per the revised checklist as per the Government of India requirements. Thereupon a report was sent on 23.05.2009 as per the revised checklist.
5. The sum and substance of the counter affidavit is though the petitioner has submitted personal knowledge certificates of two freedom fighters who are pensioners, no material is shown by the petitioner in support of his contention that he was imprisoned and was kept in Jail or any other document in support of the personal knowledge certificates. However, finally it is stated that the matter of policy required to be decided by the State Government.
6. As per the Scheme, 1980, a person is eligible to claim pension under the scheme, if he has suffered imprisonment for a minimum period of six months on account of participation in freedom struggle. In support of his claim that he has suffered imprisonment, a person is required to produce evidence of imprisonment/detention from the concerned Jail authorities, in the form of certificate of District Magistrate or the State Government, indicating the period of sentence awarded, date of admission, date of release, the facts of the case and the reasons for release. In case records are not available, the person should submit certificate issued by two co-prisoners who were freedom fighters and who have proven jail suffering of minimum one year and who were with the applicant in the jail for a minimum period of six months. In case a person who issued such certificate is an Ex.Member of Parliament or Ex.Member of Legislative Assembly, one certificate in place of two is sufficient. However, this must also be followed by a certificate issued by the State, holding that records are not available. It is called “Non-Availability of Record Certificate” (NARC). The further requirement is that suffering was because he was a proclaimed offender or one on whom an award for arrest was announced or one for whose detention, order was issued but not served.
7. The claim of the underground suffering should also be considered subject to furnishing of relevant documents supporting that the applicant was an absconder, announcing an award on his head or for his arrest or ordering his detention. Such documentary evidence should be by way of Courts/Government orders. Secondly, where the records of relevant period are not available, NARC should be issued by the concerned State along with personal knowledge certificate, from a prominent freedom fighter who has proven jail suffering of minimum two years and who happens to belong to the same administrative unit.
8. In the instant case, the petitioner has claimed to have suffered as a prisoner apart from fighting by going underground. He gave certificate of personal knowledge from a prominent freedom fighter. Thereafter the matter is tossed between the District Administration and the State Administration. For no valid reason the claim is yet to reach the Central Government.
9. The petitioner enclosed a certificate issued by the Superintendent, Sub- Jail, Bheemavaram, informing the petitioner that no records are available for the relevant period. No reasons are assigned in the counter filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent and no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent explaining the reasons for not issuing NARC. It appears from the endorsement made by the Superintendent, Sub-Jail that the records for the relevant period are not available, therefore, it is not possible now to verify whether the petitioner’s name was actually found in the Jail records or not and in the absence of such certificate, the personal knowledge certificate issued by the prominent freedom fighters assumes significance. The freedom fighter stated that the petitioner had participated in the freedom struggle. Therefore, there would not have been any impediment in the State Government to issue the certificate as required by the Government of India under the policy i.e., NARC. There is clear laxity on the part of the State Government in considering the claim of the petitioner and keeping the issue pending for more than three decades without any justification. Such action of the State Government is highly deprecated.
10. Having regard to the facts of this case, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the State Government is directed to issue Non-Availability of Record Certificate (NARC) within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order; Compile the information as required under the Scheme, 1980; and forward the proposal to the Central Government within a further period of four weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO,J 11th December, 2014
Rds