Punjab and Haryana High Court decries bureaucratic mindset in deciding on INA soldier’s pension
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, March 29
More than 80 years after Nachhattar Singh “took part” in the country’s freedom movement as a member of the Indian National Army, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped the Union of India for its failure to verify his widow’s claim after describing the matter as a “case of a typical bureaucratic mindset”.
Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj also made it clear that Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme’s objective was never to harass the claimants and burden them with the task of obtaining documents. The papers might or might not be in their possession, considering the tumultuous times during which the freedom fighters were imprisoned, including instances where INA members were incarcerated abroad.
The assertion came on widow Pritam Kaur’s petition seeking directions to the Union of India and other respondents to grant the Centre’s portion of freedom fighter pension under the scheme, along with arrears.
Justice Bhardwaj’s Bench was told that Nachhattar Singh, among other things, served the INA from June 8, 1942, to May 16, 1946. The family plunged into financial hardship after he passed away in August 2015. The Punjab Government acknowledged his status as a freedom fighter before giving its share of the pension. The existing grievance was regarding the pension’s central portion.
Justice Bhardwaj asserted the court failed to understand why the respondent-Union of India could not have verified the claim from the record undisputedly in its possession with the Freedom Fighter Division of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. The verification could have been easily carried out as specific details had been provided by the petitioner about her husband, including regiment number and the jails he was lodged in.
Justice Bhardwaj added an individual’s resources to secure such documents were meagre and the government itself was in possession of the entire record on the basis of which the claim could have been verified. As such, it might be inappropriate to refuse processing the case further in the absence of advance supply of all the documents.
“I find that it is a case of a typical bureaucratic mindset which passes on its responsibility entirely on a claimant and the official concerned has chosen not to turn to his archives to verify the said claim.”
Disposing of the petition, Justice Bhardwaj directed the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters’ Division, to verify the claims. The requisite share of the central government in the pension was also directed to be released, if the record was traceable and verifiable. For verification purpose, six month deadline was set. The amount, with six per cent annual interest, was further directed to be released within the next two months, if the claim was found to be well established.
