New Delhi, July 5 (Inditop.com) After having fought to free the country from British rule, he had no idea that another battle was in store. Satish Chandra Mishra, now 90, had to run from pillar to post for his pension since 1981 – which he is finally getting thanks to the Delhi High Court that pulled up the government for its apathy towards those who fought for the nation’s freedom.
Justice Kailash Gambhir in his order passed last week said: “Today as we freely move around in our country without anyone questioning or imposing any kinds of restrictions on us, we feel satisfied and content. But this satisfaction is due to the efforts made by our freedom fighters to free our country from British rule. It is because of our freedom fighters that today we are enjoying our freedom.”
Mishra participated in the Quit India Movement in 1942. His application for claiming Swatantrata Sainik Pension (SSP) was declined by the government on the grounds that he could not produce sufficient records to establish that he was a freedom fighter.
Pulling the government up for its attitude towards the freedom fighters, the court said: “Free India is a gift to each one of us from these freedom fighters. As a mark of respect and to pay our gratitude to them the government started the SSP scheme. But cases like the present one show the apathy of our government that how they arbitrarily deny the same to such freedom fighters who are eligible for it.
“The government should not deal with such matters in an arbitrary and shabby manner. These freedom fighters who now are very aged should not be made to run from pillar to post for grant of pension for which they are eligible. The government should be a little more considerate and thoughtful while dealing with such cases,” the bench said while asking the government to pay Mishra his pension money from 1981 onwards.
Counsel for the petitioner stated before the court: “The freedom fighter scheme was introduced by the government of India in 1972 in which the normal eligibility fixed for grant of pension was six months’ imprisonment while participating in the freedom movement and the SSP scheme also provided for those freedom fighters who had absconded due to registration of a criminal case.”
“My client (petitioner) did not mention the criminal case number as at the time of filing the application he could not recollect it but later upon his remembering, which was also confirmed by his friend Hira Singh, a certified copy of the same was applied for but no records were available for the same and the government rejected his plea on the same ground.”
Counsel for the central government contended that his application was rejected since Mishra did not follow the procedure and did not file the necessary documents to claim his pension.
“The object of the SSP scheme is to honour and to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country; a liberal and not a technical approach is required to be followed while determining the merits of the case of a person seeking pension under the scheme. It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by the scheme had suffered for the country about half-a-century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them,” the court noted.
Turning down the submission of government counsel that the petitioner took more than 13 years to support his claim, the court said: “It is a matter of common knowledge that those persons who participated in the freedom struggle have now grown old; the present petitioner, who participated in the Quit India Movement of 1942 is of 90 years of age. We cannot expect such persons to remember everything minutely.”
