Delhi HC fines Centre Rs 20,000 for failing to release pension to 96-year-old freedom fighter even after 4 decades

The freedom fighter had applied for 'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension' in March 1982. The Bihar government had approved the documents and gave its recommendation in March 1985. But, the Centre lost the documents following which, Bihar government once again verfied the documents and sent a letter to the Union government on July 14, 2022. Despite this, the Centre failed to release his pension.

New Delhi:The Delhi High Court has imposed a penalty of Rs 20,000 on the Central Government for its "lackadaisical" approach in paying pension to a 96-year-old freedom fighter under the 'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension' scheme.

The court said that the Centre's inability to pay pension to freedom fighter Uttim Lal Singh and make him wait for more than four decades is an insult to him. The bench of Justice Subramaniam Prasad has ordered the government to pay him the pension from 1980 along with an interest of 6 percent per annum within 12 weeks. Also, a fine of Rs 20,000 has been imposed on the government for its indifferent attitude towards the freedom fighter, who had to run from pillar to post for his pension.

Uttim Lal Singh had applied for 'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension' in March 1982. His case was recommended by the Bihar government in March 1985 but, the documents were lost by the Central Government. Following which, the Bihar government had reverified the documents and issued a fresh letter to the Centre on July 14, 2022. But, the pension was not released, the court added.

Accepting the petition, the bench observed that Bihar government had already recommended Uttim Lal Singh and the concerned district magistrate had verified his name but, it could not understand as to why pension was not released. The judge said that the basic spirit of the pension scheme is being defeated by such lackadaisical attitude of the Central Government and said that the insensitivity shown by the Union government is painful.

The petitioner told court that he participated in the Quit India Movement and other movements related to the freedom struggle. He was declared a criminal by the British government and his land was confiscated.