Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1623 (PAT)

Devi Sharan Singh v. Union Of India

2008-11-14

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2008
Judgment Ajay Kr.Tripathi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. I.A. No. 5135 of 2005 has been filed for substituting the legal heirs of the petitioner. The legal heirs have been described to be two grandsons whose names are furnished in paragraph no. 2 of the substitution petition. 3. I.A. No. 5135 of 2005 is allowed. Let the legal heirs indicated in the substitution petition be brought on record. 4. The writ in question has been filed by the original petitioner when the Ministry of Home, Union of India (Freedom Fighter Division), rejected his claim for grant of freedom fighter pension vide communication dated 3.7.1991 contained in Annexure-12. It is this rejection which is being challenged now in the present writ application, which was filed in the year 1994. 5. The brief facts are that the petitioner after coming of the scheme in the year 1972 filed an application for grant of freedom fighter pension vide his application dated 24.6.1972 which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 6. It is a categorical assertion on behalf of the petitioner that he had suffered three months of imprisonment though was later acquitted in the case. This according to him was the reason which made him eligible to claim the benefit as envisaged in the scheme. The application was considered by the respondents but they did not find any merit in the claim because it was not in conformity with the scheme, meaning thereby that the petitioner had not suffered at least six months of incarceration. 7. Subsequently, in the year 1982, the scheme was liberalized and even persons who have been absconders as per the law on due certification were also to be considered for grant of such pension. Petitioner therefore, made a fresh bid by asserting that he was also an absconder for many a months if not a year or more in support of the same, he furnished certain certificate issued by certain authorities, even, this claim of the original petitioner was considered by the respondents, but since the documentation in support of the claim of his being an absconder was not in order, even under the liberalized scheme the benefit did not accrue to the petitioner. Many correspondences therefore were made and representations filed which finally culminated into the impugned order contained in Annexure-12. 8. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the authorities have committed a mistake in passing the order inasmuch as there are surrounding circumstances to show that the petitioner was a freedom fighter, had actively participated in the movement and there were other people who were his comrades in arm and have been given this benefit. He was even given a token or gesture of such honour by being awarded a sum of Rs. 200/- (Two hundred only) and a Tampatra in this regard, but when it came down to the benefit under the scheme, the authorities have brushed aside his claim lightly. 9. In most of these cases since the claim mostly relates to the period of Quit India Movement, the majority of the documents are not available. Unavailability of authentic documents have gone against some genuine persons, but it has also given some freedom and free play to others to assert and claim the benefit of having participated in the Movement. In other words, the authorities will have to go by what is asserted and what is produced by a claimant while making applications for such benefit before the competent authority. 10. A bare look at the application of the petitioner coupled with the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondents the reasoning assigned in Annexure-12 while rejecting the claim of the petitioner reads in-harmony. This court does not find anything incongruous both with regard to the claim made initially by the petitioner, the supporting documents furnished by him and the conclusion reached by the competent authority with regard to his claim for grant of such pension when has not suffered incarceration for six months. It is well established even according to the petitioners claim that he had suffered incarceration at the most for three months. 11. The other limb of the argument of the petitioner that he should have been granted the pension under the liberalized scheme of being treated as an absconder, that aspect has also been answered in the counter affidavit and the assertion made in the paragraph no. 5 is an answer in this regard. 12. 11. The other limb of the argument of the petitioner that he should have been granted the pension under the liberalized scheme of being treated as an absconder, that aspect has also been answered in the counter affidavit and the assertion made in the paragraph no. 5 is an answer in this regard. 12. In other words, it is not a case where the authorities have not applied themselves or have come to a conclusion not based on material or cogent reasons. Not only this, as per the record the original petitioner is no more and the battle is now being carried on by the grandsons of the original petitioner claiming the benefit with the given facts and situation. 13. The court cannot extend the ambit of not only the scheme but also substitute its wisdom to a decision taken by the competent authority after due examination of the materials over a period of more than two decades before the application was made before this court. 14. The court does not find any merit in the writ application. 15. The writ application is dismissed, but without any cost.