Premananda Das v. Union Of India And ORS
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFTRIPURA AGARTALA W.P.(C)No.512of2014 ShriPremanandaDas,
! "
.........Petitioner -Versus- 1. TheUnionofIndia,
# # $ % &'
( #) * 2. TheSecretary, ( # ' "
* 3. TheChiefSecretary, ' &%
) ' "
% ........Respondents BEFORE THEHON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.TALAPATRA + :( , #% + -./:( 0(
,', + 1 :( , #%
'% # :16.09.2015 2
.
: Yes No √ JUDGMENT&ORDER(ORAL) $
( , # * ( 0 (
,',
[2] - / ( , # %
'% 1 [2] "
*
# ( # $ % ' 4 *
*
0
*
# 5 % # ,
# +
+ *,
"
67--/668 % 9
:
;- # 13 #
* #
< "The Committee has carefully examined the case and opined that there was no movement from first part of 1943 to 1947. There was no reason of going in underground. No copy of warrant of arrest is produced. So the Committeehasnotrecommendedthecase." [3] 0 # * *
( #$ % ' 4
-=76
[3] [4] ( , # *
*
> 4 ( *
# 2
( -?---=7- $ *
0# ( > 4 (
4 , $ * 4 @
+ > 4 ( #* !
, *
"
*
*
-=A/
AB# # "
0# % -=A8 4 *
2
( : ,
( C # *
0 "
# 0
, #* # *
0 $
# ' 4 $
*
[4] ?&9) -=A/-=A8 *
[5] *
( , # #
*
*
# D
* ** # 0
[6] +
( 0(
,', - / #
4 9
?
9 *
9
# #
$* , /A
< 'In absence of the official records, NARC from the State Govt. UT/ Administration concerned, along with a certificate from prominent freedomfighter,whohadprovenjailsufferings of at least two years; who belonged to the
[5] same administrative unit and whose area of operation was same as that of the applicant, shouldbefurnished.' ( (
,', #
D $
*
*#
"
-=76
-=76
4 9
Union of India vs. K. Indrasena Reddy & Anr.,
AIR 2007 SC 2484 *
9
*
*
< "10. A person is entitled to the benefit of the Samman Pension Scheme provided he fulfills the criteria laid down therein. One of the criteria laid in the said scheme, as noticed hereinbefore, was that the concerned person on account of his participation in freedom struggle, had to remain underground for more thansixmonths.However,thesamewouldbe subject to the conditions laid down therein, namely,(i)hehastobeaproclaimedoffender; or (ii) he is one on whom an award for arrest was announced; or (iii) he is one for whose detention,anorderofarrestwasissuedbutnot served. 11. If only an order of detention was issued, thesamebyitselfmaynotleadtoaconclusion that the first respondent had to remain undergroundformorethansixmonths,unless
[6] he proves one or the other requisite condition precedentsthereforementionedinthescheme. 12. The appropriate authority as also the learned Single Judge had clearly come to the conclusion that the first respondent was neither declared a proclaimed offender nor an awardforhisarrestwasannouncedoranorder of detention had been issued but could not be served. The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore,inouropinioncommittedamanifest error in passing the impugned judgment in so far as it proceeded on the basis that respondent No. 1 herein was entitled to grant ofpensionundertheSammanPensionScheme. only because an order of detention had been issuedagainsthim."
9
E
0
[7] ( , # %
'% 1 ( #$ % ' 4
C
!
# *
*
#
*
*
*
*
4
#
[8] +
#
#
# 2
( 0
, # ,
[7] *
*# * , :/A
% 9: 0:44
"
# **
*
# 0
#
"
# # $
*
#
%
# * $*
JUDGE