‘Honour, gratitude, not unbridled right’: Calcutta High Court denies freedom fighter pension to daughter over 22-year delay

It was found that the daughter had waited 11 years first to apply for a pension and another 11 years before approaching the court after her representation was rejected by the relevant authorities in 2012.

“Even if a pension were to be construed as a right, it is not an unbridled right, but one that comes with some amount of restrictions or qualifications. Timelines do not constrain a right but merely discipline the mode and manner of applying for such a right,” the Calcutta High Court added. 

The high court was hearing an appeal filed by the daughter challenging the order of the single judge in October 2023, refusing to grant her freedom fighter pension benefits.

Bera was considered a freedom fighter under the Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme, 1972, which was later modified as the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. 

“It was as a mark of honour and gratitude for such freedom fighters that it was decided that a lifetime pension would be granted to all those freedom fighters who had sacrificed a substantial period of their lives or had suffered ignominy in the hands of the foreign rulers,” the May 7 order read. 

‘No explanation for delay’

• The Calcutta High Court pointed out that the legislation concerning freedom fighters is a benevolent legislation enacted with the idea of the nation showing gratitude for those people who had fought for and obtained the freedom of this great nation. 
• The Calcutta High Court clarified that since the daughter has not crossed any of the hurdles provided in the scheme, she is not entitled to any pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. 
• The court emphasised that there were certain parameters set forth as to who and how they would be entitled to obtain the pension under the category of being a freedom fighter of the nation. 
• The Calcutta High Court noted that on the date of the death of the father on February 18, 1996, the daughter was not a dependent as she was regularly employed and was drawing a salary. 
• The high court also highlighted that there is no explanation for any of the delayed timelines, especially as to how, from 1996 to 2007, she had not applied for the pension.  
• The Calcutta High Court also pointed out that there is no pleading challenging the relevant scheme or its amendments, and it is clearly a reiteration of her claim for pension on a very basic ground. 

Pension scheme, and conditions

• The Calcutta High Court pointed out that the conditions set out in the relevant scheme are conditions which have to be fulfilled by the applicant in aggregate. 
• All conditions are to be met by the applicant to entitle her to get the pension, which was being paid to the freedom fighter. 
• The court noted that the Freedom Fighters’ Pension Scheme, which commenced on August 15, 1972, had gone through certain amendments and modifications over a period of time.
• The Calcutta High Court specifically mentioned the office memo of February 2017, which directed the concerned banks as to why and under what circumstances and the manner to release pension. 
• The court further noted that before 2014, no timelines had been set for making the application. 
• It was emphasised that, over time, the scheme’s portals were expanded to extend pensionary benefits to the freedom fighters’ unmarried and widowed daughters. 

Pension, delayed application

It was claimed by the petitioner that her father, Krishna Pada Bera, participated in the Quit India Movement in 1942 and was imprisoned for a period of six months for such participation.

It was added that after independence, the Freedom Fighter’s Pension Scheme, 1972, was enacted, and the said Krishna Pada Bera applied and was granted a pension of Rs 150 per month, which was later enhanced to Rs 200 per month on February 18, 1996. 

Subsequently, Krishna Pada Bera passed away. Her daughter filed an application for grant of pension with the authorities around 2007, after the expiry of 11 years from the date of the death of Bera. 

It was claimed that she alone was entitled to the pension, being an unmarried daughter, dependent on her father. 

It was further claimed that between June and July 2007, the daughter made multiple representations, which were not considered. This prompted her to file a petition in 2009, which was disposed of, directing the authorities concerned to consider her case based on her representation, within a period of six months. The said representation was considered and rejected on August 7, 2012. 

The daughter made a fresh representation on December 13, 2016, which was considered and rejected on January 9, 2017, in line with the rejection of August 7, 2012. 

It was noted by the Calcutta High Court that the rejections were not challenged by the daughter. It was further noted that only after a lapse of more than five years from the second rejection that she approached this high court with a second petition.

However, the same was dismissed by an order dated October 4, 2023. Aggrieved by the same, she challenged that October 2023 order before the high court again. 

Arguments 

Appearing for the daughter, advocate Ramdulal Manna argued that the daughter is entitled to the pension which was paid to her father till his death in 1996. 

He added that the daughter, being the only unmarried daughter, is entitled to such a pension. It was further added that the pension scheme, being beneficial legislation, cannot be restricted by the introduction of definite timelines. 

Representing the state, Additional Solicitor General of India Ashoke Kumar Chakraborty contended that applications made by the daughter are squarely barred by limitation. He added that even if it is considered that there can be no timelines in beneficial legislation, the delay has to be explained. 

He added that the daughter has not given any explanation for the delay in making the application for a pension.