Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 195 (PAT)

Narendra Nath Mishra v. State Of Bihar

2000-02-04

B.N.SINGH, SACHCHIDANAND JHA

body2000
Judgment S.N.JHA, J. 1. The appellant filed writ petition, CWJC No. 10271 of 1995, giving rise to this appeal, seeking direction to the State Government to forward his name to the Government of India for the award of the Presidents Home Guards and Civil Defence Medal. The learned single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the claim had become stale and there was no explanation for the delay. 2. The appellant was appointed as Havildar Clerk in 1966. He was later promoted as Company Commander. Apropos to an incident of 26-9-86, when he saved the life of a drowning woman, his name was recommended for the Presidents Home Guards and Civil Defence Medal by the local officials including the District Superintendent of Police, Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner. Nothing happened apparently because a departmental proceeding was pending against him. In fact, it appears that in 1990 another proceeding was initiated against him. The proceedings came to an end in 1992. The appellant was exonerated in both. The Divisional Commandant, Bihar Home Guards, Patna Division again sent citation with necessary information with respect to the said incident to the Commandant General, Bihar Home Guards on 17-11-92, presumably, after conclusion of the departmental proceedings. From the enclosure to the letter of the Deputy Secretary, Home (Spl) Department, Government of Bihar to the Deputy Secretary, Bihar Legislative Assembly, it appears that though the appellant was exonerated in both the proceedings, his claim was not placed before the screening committee on the ground that the claim had become time barred as per the circulars of the Government of India. 3. In the counter affidavit filed before the learned single Judge, reference has been made to two circulars of the Government of India bearing Nos. 11022/3/84 NPC Cell dated 5-2-85 and VI-11021/2/89 DGCD (PandC) dated 30-6-89. The circular dated 5-2-85 is not available on the records but the other circular dated 30-6-89 has been brought on record by the appellant himself as part of Annexure-11 series to the writ petition. It would be useful to quote the relevant part of the said circular as under :"The proposal in this regard should be submitted as and when the relevant act of Gallantry takes place and should in any case be sent within one year from the relevant act of gallantry. It would be useful to quote the relevant part of the said circular as under :"The proposal in this regard should be submitted as and when the relevant act of Gallantry takes place and should in any case be sent within one year from the relevant act of gallantry. In case where the prescribed time limit has expired and there has been introdinate delay in forwarding the recommendation but at the same time the recommending authority feels that the case is deserving/convincing; specific reasons for the dealy and the special circumstances necessitating belated consideration of the case may please be furnished by the State Government U.T./ Central Ministries while forwarding the recommendations."It would thus appear that only in special case, for specific reasons to be recorded, the proposal for the Gallantry award could be entertained after expiry of one year of the incident. The circular dated 13-3-95 which is Annexure-A to the counter affidavit contains a similar clause as under :"There is no time schedule for Gallantry Medals. But the recommendation must reach this Ministry within one year from the date of act of such gallantry to avoid technical rejection" 4. Even if the 1995 circular is ignored as the incident in question had taken place in 1986 itself, in the 1989 circular such a condition was there. Admittedly, a departmental proceeding was pending at the time when the incident took place and the proposal for award of the Medal was initiated by the local officials. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of departmental proceeding the person is not eligible for being considered for the Medal. The appellant, who himself argued his case, very fairly did not make any submission to the contrary. 5. Thus, the position is that by the time the appellant became eligible for being considered for grant of the Gallantry Medal in 1992, his claim had become time barred. The action of the respondents in not placing his case before the screening committee therefore, cannot be said to be erroneous. And by the time the appellant approached this Court in the year 1995, the claim had become stale. The dismissal of the writ petition therefore, cannot be said to be illegal and the matter does not require any interference. 6. And by the time the appellant approached this Court in the year 1995, the claim had become stale. The dismissal of the writ petition therefore, cannot be said to be illegal and the matter does not require any interference. 6. In the counter affidavit filed before the learned single Judge, the respondents took objection to the fact that although the claim was rejected thrice, the appellant was trying to put pressure on the Government by taking recourse of his political contacts so much so that he had to be warned not to do so otherwise departmental action would be taken against him, vide letter No. 1008 / C dated 16-6-93 of the Home (Spl) Department. From the records it appears that at least on two occasions assembly questions were asked in July-November,1993 and again in July, 1994. 7. In course of hearing the appellant placed reliance on Sachindra Nath Dubey V/s. Union of India (1997)2 Pat.LJR 633 and Mohan Pd. Singh V/s. State of Bihar (1999)2 BBCJ 387 . In the former case, this Court held that consideration should not be refused because of laches on the part of the State Government. In the latter case, the petitioner had challenged the order of termination of his services and the issue was different. 8. In the facts and circumstances, no case has been made out for any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 9. B.N. SINGH "NEELAM", J. :- - I agree.Appeal dismissed.