Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 397 (PAT)

Rudra Nand Mishra v. Union Of India

2000-03-09

S.K.CHATTOPADHYAYA

body2000
Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 10.2.1993 passed by the respondent No. 3, rejecting his prayer for grant of freedom-fighter pension has moved before this Court in the present writ application. 2. The petitioner, claiming himself to be a freedom-fighter, applied for such pension on 29.7.1981 asserting inter alia that as student he took active part in freedom fighting of 1942 and as such was involved in Madanpur P.S. Case No. 404 of 1942 and remained underground from 27.10.1942 to 28.5.1943. For such long absence from school, a forced school leaving certificate was issued by the headmaster of the school on 28.5.1943, mentioning therein that for involvement of the student in agitation, he was not promoted to Class-XI as he did not appear in Annual Examination. Thereafter, the petitioner became a full fledged member of the political party, working for the country. 3. Further case is that his application for pension was received by the State Government on 29.7.1981 itself and was registered as 21343. The State Government on 8.8.1986 informed him that his case was not being considered for non-production of documents as required in proof of his suffering. This letter is Annextire-3. The petitioner in support of his claim filed necessary documents one of which was a diary of 1942 said to be of one Krishna Chandra Biswas, a freedom-fighter. This diary according to the Counsel of petitioner, reveals that Madanpur P.S. case No. 404 and 405 of 1942 were instituted against petitioner and another but they could not be arrested as by that time, they went underground for a considerable period. Apart from that, non-availability of record certificate was also furnished showing that record certificate was also furnished showing that record of said Police Station Case was destroyed, in which Krishna Chandra Biswas was also an accused. 4. The State Government, after receipt of those documents, made an inquiry and the Collector, Purnea on 23.12.1988 certified that documents produced by the petitioner were correct. These letters are Annexures-5 and 5/1. The petitioner also relied upon a certificate given by one Jagarnath Singh Mandal, said to be a freedom-tighter, in support of his claim. This certificate is Annexvire-6. 5. The Union of India on 1.2.1990 rejected his prayer on the ground that sufficient proof for grant of pension was not supplied. This order is contained in Amiexure-7. The petitioner also relied upon a certificate given by one Jagarnath Singh Mandal, said to be a freedom-tighter, in support of his claim. This certificate is Annexvire-6. 5. The Union of India on 1.2.1990 rejected his prayer on the ground that sufficient proof for grant of pension was not supplied. This order is contained in Amiexure-7. Thereafter, the petitioner moved before the Union of India for reconsideration of his case mentioning that documents in support of his claim had already been submitted before the State of Bihar and the same may be called for. On 4.4.1990. State Government recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of such pension and his application was forwarded to the Union of India. This recommendation of the State Government, is Annexure-9. By Annexure-2, the Union of india asked the petitioner to furnish certain documents as mentioned in the letter and when the petitioner was hoping for getting pension, he was informed by the impugned order dated 10.2.1993 that his prayer was rejected. 6. According to the petitioner, no notice was served to him to show-cause before refusing his prayer. Mrs. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order will show? non-application of mind by the Union of India, because the petitioner never based his claim on the ground that he was rusticated from the school. She continues, that when the petitioners case was recommended by the State Government on being satisfied about proof of his claim, the Central Government was obliged to grant pension. 7. Before averting to the stand taken by the Union of India in its counter-affidavit, I may indicate certain apparent lacuna in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner, for the reasons best known to him has not annexed a copy of the claim petition which he filed before the State Government. If this document would have been annexed, this Court would have been in a position to know as to whether claim of the petitioner was based on the ground that he was rusticated from the school or the basis of certain documents, namely, certificate of Jagarnath Singh Mandal and non-availability of record certificate. If this document would have been annexed, this Court would have been in a position to know as to whether claim of the petitioner was based on the ground that he was rusticated from the school or the basis of certain documents, namely, certificate of Jagarnath Singh Mandal and non-availability of record certificate. Secondly though specific stand of the petitioner is that Jagarnath Singh Mandal a freedom-fighter has issued certificate in his favour but Annexure-9, recommendation of the State Government reveals that one Sri Brij Bihari Singh of Purnea gave certificate that this petitioner was remained underground with effect from 27.10.1942 to 28.5.1943. I fail to understand as to how the State Government relied on the certificate given by one Brij Bihari Singh, when no such case was made out by the petitioner himself and specific case was that one Jagarnath Singh Mandal had given the certificate to him. This shows how mechanically the State Government without considering records, recommended the case of the petitioner to the Union of India. 8. The stand of the Union of India is that prayer for grant of pension was considered mid rejected because from non-availability of record certificate (NARC), it was found that the case was disposed of on 25.2.1943 and so the period of underground suffering till September 1944 becomes suspicious. Moreover, even after disposal of the case, what compelled the petitioner to remain underground up to September 1944 was also not clear to the Union of India. The certificate furnished by the petitioner was not accepted because expulsion from school was not a criteria for grant of such pension. 9. It is now well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of M.L. Bhandari and Ors. V/s. The Union of India and Ors. , that when the Union of India, the sanctioning authority after scrutinising records of a particular case comes to a conclusion that sufficient documentary evidence were not produced and so pension to the applicant cannot be granted the Court will not embark upon such findings by scrutinising the documents. In the present case, as noticed above, the petitioner himself is not sure about basis of his claim and as such he has, tried to file documents after documents and even the so-called forced school leaving certificate of the headmaster dated 28.5.1943 has not been annexed. In the present case, as noticed above, the petitioner himself is not sure about basis of his claim and as such he has, tried to file documents after documents and even the so-called forced school leaving certificate of the headmaster dated 28.5.1943 has not been annexed. In such circumstances, it is difficult for the Court to grant relief to the petitioner. In result, I find no merit in this case. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.