Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 326 (GAU)

Anil Chandra Sarkar v. Union of India

2011-04-08

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA, C.R.SARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Assistant SG for the representing the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned State counsel. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6-1-06 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 289 of 1998 by which the writ petition filed by the present Appellant was dismissed. The Petitioner who is the Appellant in this appeal claiming himself to be a freedom fighter entitling him to receive freedom fighters' pension filed the writ petition making a grievance against the denial of such pension on the basis of the scrutiny made by the committee appointed to find out the correctness or otherwise of the claim for such pension. 3. In the writ petition, the claim of the writ Petitioner was that he had suffered imprisonment in connection with Quit India movement in 1942 and had to remain in prison for nine months. According to him, he was arrested and kept in Chandpur Jail hajat in Comilla district, the then India which later became East Pakistan and now Bangladesh. The Petitioner was initially granted the pension @ Rs. 200 per month with effect from 15-8-72. However, later on when some doubt arose, such pension was suspended in 1975. Thereafter, upon scrutiny of the matter by the appointed committee, it was found that the Petitioner was not entitled to receive the said pension. 4. It was in the aforesaid background the Petitioner had invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition. The writ petition having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order, he has filed the present appeal. 5. Mr. Talapatra, learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner/Appellant drawing our attention to the finding recorded in the letter dated 14-2-89 stating that the Petitioner could not produce any document as per guidelines of the Pension scheme, submits that the same very communication will indicate that in fact the Petitioner had submitted the certificates from the SDO, Sadar and also from three persons, namely, Priyabandu Bhattacharjee, Hem Chandra Debbarma and P. R. Dasgupta and two others. 6. 6. As per the requirement of the Pension scheme, the freedom fighter is to furnish certificates from the concerned Jail authorities, District Magistrate or the State Government. In case of non-availability of such certificates, co-prisoners' certificates from sitting MP or MLA or from an ex-MP or an ex-MLA specifying the Jail period. As per the said requirement, there is no provision of issuance of any such certificate by the SDO on which the Petitioner has placed reliance. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner could not produce the co-prisoners' certificate from sitting MP or MLA or from an ex-MP or an ex-MLA specifying the Jail period. 7. Apart from the above, as was contended in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, the issue relating to acceptability or otherwise of the certificate issued by the SDO had been gone into in T.S. 158 of 1987 to which the Petitioner-Appellant was very much a party. In the suit, while answering the issue No. 7, it was held that such certificate was not acceptable. Even otherwise also, there being no provision in the scheme framed by the Central Government for issuance of certificate by the SDO, the State Government could not have authorized the said officer to issue such certificate. 8. The learned Single Judge has discussed the entire matter in details. In absence of anything to show that the SDO had the record of imprisonment of the Petitioner of Chandpur sub-Jail or Comilla district Jail in 1942/43, it would not be safe to act upon such certificate issued by him. The learned Single Judge has also referred to the principle relating to the administrative law that when relevant considerations have been taken note of and irrelevant aspects have been ignored and the administrative decisions have nexus with the facts on record, the same cannot be attacked on merits. 9. In the instant case, the committee had gone into all the details and upon scrutiny of the materials on record, it was held that the Petitioner's case did not come within the purview of Pension scheme. This Court exercising the power of Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit on appeal in respect of such finding and/or re-appreciate the evidence so as to come to a different finding. This Court exercising the power of Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit on appeal in respect of such finding and/or re-appreciate the evidence so as to come to a different finding. As per own showing of the Petitioner in the writ petition, he did not conform to the requirement of the Pension scheme. 10. Learned Single Judge has also gone into the delay aspect of the matter. The pension of the Petitioner was suspended in 1975 and thereafter the matter was given finality in the year 1989. But the writ petition was filed in the year 1998. However, this aspect of the matter need not detain us in view of our above finding on merit. At this stage, Mr. Talapatra, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant has expired about three months back. Be that as it may, since we have decided the matter on merit, this aspect of the matter need not detain us. 11. Situated thus, we see no infirmity in the judgment and order dated 6-1-06 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 289 of 1998. 12. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.