Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 501 (PAT)

Bakhori Mahto v. Union of India

2000-03-29

S.N.JHA

body2000
ORDER The dispute in this writ petition relates to freedom fighter’s pension. The Petitioner had come to this Court earlier also in the same matter and pursuant to direction issued by this Court his claim was considered again but rejected by the impugned communication dated 30.7.98 as contained in Annex-l. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the rejection was for good reasons and does not require interference. In course of hearing counsel for the petitioner placed reliance of payment of lump sum grant treating the petitioner as a political sufferer. While the order of the State Government treating a person as a political Suffer may be a piece of evidence the claim for grant of freedom fighter's pension has to be considered within the parameters of the scheme framed in 1972 as revised in 1980. In course of hearing counsel for the petitioner himself admitted that the petitioner did not apply for freedom fighter’s Pension prior to 1982 because he was not eligible for such grant under the original scheme of 1972 As per the revised scheme, unless the claimant proves sufferance for a period of minimum six months either in custody or as an absconder, pursuant to the process issued by the court, his claim cannot be allowed, The scope of judicial review of a administrative decision is well known, In the context of the grant of freedom fighter's pension itself the Supreme Court clearly held in the oft-quoted case of Mukund lal Bhandari, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2128, that it is the, Central Government which has to justify itself on the basis of reliable evidence and it is not the business of the Court to draw conclusion on merit of the claim. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, was required to decide the claim but it would appear from the impugned communication that the claim has again been considered by the same very authority i.e. the Under Secretary, who had earlier rejected the claim. The submission has been noticed only to be rejected for it is mere communication of the order taken by the competent authority, which is evident from the re-authority of the letter, “I am directed to...... ” No ground is made out for interference. The writ petition is dismissed.