Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 121 (PAT)

Sarjug Singh v. Union Of India

2009-01-27

MIHIR KUMAR JHA

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents-Union of India and State of Bihar. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has sought a relief of quashing of the order dated 20.11.1998 (Annexure-8) and the order dated 13.10.99/2.11.99 (Annexure-13) rejecting his claim for grant of pension under the Freedon Fighter Pension Scheme, 1980. The petitioner has also by way of consequential relief sought a direction to the respondents for payment of such pension with effect from 1.8.1980. 3. With reference to the aforementioned relief the respondents-Union of India has filed a detailed counter affidavit and in paragraph Nos. 8.1 and 8.2 of such counter affidavit reasons have been set out which only explain the impugned order. 4. Paragraph Nos. 8.1 and 8.2 of the counter affidavit reads of follows:- "The application of the petitioner Shri Saryug Singh was received in this Ministry on 15.4.82 in which the petitioner claimed underground suffering from August 1942 to 14.9.43 and jail suffering from 15.9.43 to 13.10.43. In support of his claim the petitioner furnished a photocopy of a certificate from Superintendent, Jail, Muzaffarpur, Bihar indicating undertrial suffering of the petitioner from 15.9.43 to 13.10.43. (Annexure-1 of the W.P.) The case was examined in detail under the provisions of the scheme and rejected vide order dated 9.8.86 for want of acceptable documents. The State Government vide their letter dated 30.5.98 recommended the claim of the petitioner. (Annexure-R-1) supported by jail certificate from Superintendent, Kara, Muzaffarpur, PKC of Gopalji Mishra and a copy of FIR. As the name of the petitioner was not found in the list of accused persons that figured in the documents submitted by the petitioner the claim was rejected vide order dated 20.11.98 (Annexure-8 of the W.P.) for the reason that the petitioner claimed underground suffering from August, 1942 to 14.9.43 due to fear of arrest. The name of the petitioner was not found in the court document furnished by the applicant. His jail suffering is also for one month i.e. less than the prescribed limit of six months. 8.2. The petitioner again furnished another copy of FIR wherein the name of the petitioner figures. On receipt of the same, his claim was re-examined and it was decided to request him to furnish original of the same. His jail suffering is also for one month i.e. less than the prescribed limit of six months. 8.2. The petitioner again furnished another copy of FIR wherein the name of the petitioner figures. On receipt of the same, his claim was re-examined and it was decided to request him to furnish original of the same. The DM, Muzaffarpur was also requested vide letter dated 13,5.99 to verify the copy of FIR furnished in support of the petitioners claim. (Annexure-10 of the W.P.) DM reported that the document could not be verified in the absence of relevant records. On perusal of the original copy of this FIR available in the file of Shri Mahender Singh, a co-accused of the petitioner, it was noticed that there were some contradiction on the dates on this court document such as signing date of comparer, stamp on each of the stamp paper which raised suspicion about the genuineness of the document. The claim of the petitioner was again rejected vide order dated 13.10.99 (Annexure-13 of the W.P.) for the following reasons:- (i) The petitioner claimed jail suffering for 29 days which is less than the prescribed limit of six months. (ii) The dates recorded on the court document furnished in support of the underground suffering of the petitioner are different which create doubt. His underground suffering for six months is also not established. It was also not clear why the copy of this document was obtained prior to independence." 5. Though the petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the said counter affidavit, facts mentioned in paragraph Nos. 8.1 and 8.2 have not been controverted and therefore at least those statement of the Government of India have remained uncontroverted and thus are the admitted facts. 6. That apart the petitioner has strongly referred to and relied on Annexures-2, 3 and 4 to the writ petition to submit that in these documents there are unimpeachable materials to show that the petitioner was a freedom fighter and thus qualified for the grant of pension and denial thereof, was arbitrary. Annexure-2 is referable to paragraph No. 6 of the writ application. Annexure-2 is referable to paragraph No. 6 of the writ application. Paragraph No. 6 of the writ petition has been answered in paragraph No. 12 of the counter affidavit stating therein that the document referred in Annexure-2 could not be relied as on a reference District Magistrate could not get the genuineness of the said document established in course of verification made from the Court. When this statement in paragraph No. 12 of the counter affidavit was controverted by the petitioner in reply affidavit, the petitioner has taken a stand in paragraph No. 4 by claiming that Annexure-2 should have been treated as No Availability Record Certificate (NARC). This aspect of the matter however has been clarified by the respondent State of Bihar in its affidavit where the requirement of NARC has been explained in following effect:- "That with regard to statements made in para 6 it is stated that the Non-Availability of Record Certificate (NARC) should not be general or vague and should confirm to the instructions issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. The instruction, inter alia, requires the State Governments to issue NARC only after due verification from all the sources. The NARC can be treated valid only when it is furnished in the following manner:- "All concerned authorities of the State Government who could have relevant records in respect of the claim of the applicant, have been consulted and it is confirmed that the official records of the relevant time are not available." 7 Counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that the NARC which was submitted by the petitioner was not in the prescribed form but then it is his plea that for this the petitioner cannot be blamed as it was for the State Government to send such a certificate. Counsel for the petitioner, however, was not in a position to answer as to whether the petitioner at every point of time had submitted any NARC to the State Government on the basis of which the verification could have been made from the concerned authority as required in the Circulars/Guidelines issued by the Government of India. In that view of the matter, non-availability of NARC was itself a sufficient ground for the Central Government to reject the case of the petitioner. 8. In that view of the matter, non-availability of NARC was itself a sufficient ground for the Central Government to reject the case of the petitioner. 8. Last flank of the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that at least the documents, Annexures-3 and 4 which are by way of Personal Knowledge Certificate of two fellow prisoners were sufficient to prove the case of the petitioner in the Freedom struggle, has again been answered by the respondents in their counter affidavit and it has stated therein that such case of the petitioner as explained in paragraph No. 9 of the writ application referring and relying on Annexures-3 and 4 was not correct as PKC by itself could not have been the basis for grant of such certificate because they are to be read alongwith NARC. 9. That being so, this Court on perusal of the materials on record, is satisfied that there is no infirmity in the decision making process while rejecting the case of the petitioner for grant of pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme. 10. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.