IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta WPA 11008 of 2024 Narayan Chandra Maiti Versus Union of India and Others For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramdulal Manna, Adv.

Mrs. Manju Manna (Dey), Adv.

Mr. Sanyasachi Mondal, Adv.

Mr. Sayan Mukherjee, Adv.

Ms. Payel Khanra, Adv.

For the UOI : Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya, Adv.

Mr. Pradyut Saha, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Adv.

Ms. Amrita Panja Moulick, Adv.

Heard on : 06.08.2025 Judgment on : 27.08.2025 Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. The writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 20th March, 2024 passed by the O.S.D. and Ex-Officio Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in pursuant to Co-ordinate Bench’s Order dated 08.03.2024 in WPCRC 24 of 2024 in WPA No. 15216 of 2023. By the said impugned order, Government of West Bengal rejected the eligibility of the petitioner in Swatantrata Sainik Samma Pension as the original records are not available with the State Government and there is no scope to rescind the earlier decision of the Government of West Bengal.

2. The operative portion of the said impugned order is set out herein below in verbatim: -

“No material fact has changed since the State Advisory Committee’s decision on the instant matter which reads “Rejected in the 88th SACM on 26.12.85” and which was duly communicated to the applicant of SSSY Pension namely Sri Narayan Chandra Maiti s/o Late Parameshwar Maiti of village Chakdurgadas(Pur) P.O. Mahadole P.S. Tamluk Dist. Midnapur by the Assistant Secretary of the Government of West Bengal vide memo no. 1943 H.P.S /HIP-4(32908)/81 dated 14/25.04.1986 stating “The case was therefore examined again on the basis of the certificate from Sri Dhara and the State Advisory Committee was consulted. The certificate of Sri Dhara could not be accepted as Sri Dhara, having once certified absconding on one ground subsequently changed it showing that he had no exact knowledge about the reasons that led to your going underground.”

3. At the very outset, it is made clear that this is third round of litigation. Earlier, the writ petitioner had filed a writ petition being WPA 6286 of 2016 (Narayan Chandra Maiti Vs. Union of India & Ors.) and after hearing the parties, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 17.05.2022 allowed the writ petition on contest by passing order inter alia as follows: -

“This Court is satisfied that the certificate issued by Shri Sushil Kumar Dhara would make the petitioner eligible for being granted pension under the said scheme. None has disputed the authenticity of the certificate issued by Shri Sushil Kumar Dhara in favour of the petitioner. This is one of the modes of approving the claim of being a freedom fighter envisaged by the said scheme.

Accordingly, the respondent authorities i.e. the Union Government is directed to pay the petitioners, Freedom Fighter’s Pension under the liberalized “Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme” with effect from the date when the petitioner made an application for grant of pension within 3 (three) months from the date of communication of the copy of this order.

WPA No. 6286 of 2016 is thus allowed.”

4. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order dated 17.05.2022, the Union of India & Ors. Preferred an appeal before the Division Bench being MAT 1901 of 2022. The said appeal was finally decided by the Division Bench and pronounced the judgment on 23.03.2023. The operative part of the said judgment, inter alia, as follows: -

“13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the records, it is observed that in Gurdial Singh v. Union of India & Ors reported in 2001(7) SCC 216, the Supreme Court held that the claimants of the pension scheme of freedom fighters are supposed to be persons who had given the best part of their life for the country therefore the standard of proof of eligibility of such persons required is not of such standar