Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 133 (DEL)

SH. BHOLA JHA v. UNION OF INDIA

2013-01-16

VALMIKI J.MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. 1. The present writ petition seeks a direction for payment to the petitioner of pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (SSS Pension), and as per which scheme a person who was an absconder for over six months is granted this pension. 2. The petitioner has pleaded that he was an absconder and ultimately the criminal case against him and 38 other persons (i.e. a total of 39 persons) was withdrawn by the order of Mr. S.S. Prasad, Ist Class Magistrate, Madhubani, Bihar on 31.5.1946. The petitioner pleads that one Mr. Sukhai Thakur and whose name is found at serial No.29 of the very same GR No.834/1942 has by virtue of the order of a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.372/2012 been granted pension from the date of filing of the writ petition in the year 2012. 3. In my opinion, since the present petitioner is shown at serial No.13 in the very same GP No.834/1942, the present case is fully covered by the judgment in L.P.A. No.372/2012 titled as Sh. Sukhai Thakur Vs. Union of India and Ors. decided on 2.11.2012. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought to argue that the petitioner had to prove that the petitioner was an absconder for six months and the same is not clear from the GR No.834/1942. In my opinion, once the Division Bench has held that the GR No.834/1942 in which order was passed on 31.5.1946 by withdrawing the case against 39 persons, and which persons should be treated as proclaimed offenders, the petitioner who is an accused under the same GR No.834/1942 cannot be denied the benefit. 5. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Division Bench are paras 6 to 11 and which read as under:- “6. The photocopy of document being an extract from the order sheet in the case of Emperor Vs. Rama Nand Das & Others in the Court of Mr. S.S. Prasad, Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhubani, District Darbhanga, GR No.834/1942, on which the claim of the appellant hinges, shows that the 39 accused mentioned therein and in which Mr. Anandi Mahto, Mr. Panak Lal Sahu and the appellant were included, were absconding and were discharged on 31.05.1946. 7. Rama Nand Das & Others in the Court of Mr. S.S. Prasad, Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhubani, District Darbhanga, GR No.834/1942, on which the claim of the appellant hinges, shows that the 39 accused mentioned therein and in which Mr. Anandi Mahto, Mr. Panak Lal Sahu and the appellant were included, were absconding and were discharged on 31.05.1946. 7. The counsel for the appellant has argued that considering that the GR is of the year 1942 and the 39 accused mentioned therein were said to be absconding till 31.05.1946, the factum of the appellant having remained absconding for more than six months as is required to be eligible for pension under the Scheme is writ large. He has based his case on the appellant being similarly situated as Mr. Anandi Mahto and Mr. Panak Lal Sahu who were granted pension on the basis of the same document, photocopy of which has been produced by the appellant. 8. The respondent Central Government, as would be apparent from a narration of the contents of their counter affidavit, has not denied sanction of pension to Mr. Anandi Mahto and Mr. Panak Lal Sahu. Rather there is no reference to Mr. Panak Lal Sahu in the counter affidavit and with respect to Mr. Anandi Mahto, it is stated that the sanction of pension was on different documents. 9. The counsel for the Central Government has produced the original file relating to Mr. Anandi Mahto before us and which has been scanned by us. We find the said file to be also containing the same photocopy i.e. the extract from the order sheet dated 07.12.1962 in GR No.834/1942 on which the appellant basis his claim. The notings in the said file record that the original GR No.834/1942 is on the file of Mr. Manohar Lal Yadav and on the basis thereof pension was sanctioned with effect from the year 1998, even though Mr. Anandi Mahto had also applied in the year 1981. 10. The counsel for the respondent has been unable to show as to why, when on the basis of the same document and facts, pension was sanctioned to Mr. Anandi Mahto, it should not be sanctioned to the appellant. 11. Anandi Mahto had also applied in the year 1981. 10. The counsel for the respondent has been unable to show as to why, when on the basis of the same document and facts, pension was sanctioned to Mr. Anandi Mahto, it should not be sanctioned to the appellant. 11. We accordingly set aside the order dated 11.04.2012 of the learned Single Judge and allow W.P.(C) No.2022/2012 filed by the appellant by quashing the letter dated 14.12.2007 of the respondents No.1&2 of rejection of the claim for SSS Pension of the appellant. Though the appellant had claimed pension from the year 1981 and though pension on similar facts was sanctioned to Mr. Anandi Mahto with effect from 1998, but owing to the delay, laches and acquiescence on the part of the appellant in preferring the writ petition only in the year 2012 inspite of rejection of his claim on 14.12.2007, we direct payment of pension to the appellant with effect from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 01.04.2012. We further direct that subject to the appellant complying with the formalities if any required to be complied with in this regard, the arrears of pension be released to the appellant within six weeks from today and future pension be also disbursed as per the Scheme. The respondents No.1&2 having rejected the claim of the appellant inspite of the appellant being similarly placed as Mr. Anandi Mahto, we also impose costs of Rs. 25,000/- payable by the respondents No.1&2 to the appellant within six weeks from today.” (underlining added) 6. In view of the above, the present writ petition being fully covered by the judgment in L.P.A. No.372/2012 is allowed and the petitioner is granted pension under SSS Pension scheme from 15.5.2010. The petitioner will also be entitled to costs of Rs. 25,000/- in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.372/2012. The arrears of pension be released to the petitioner within six weeks from today on the petitioner complying with the necessary formalities and future pension to the petitioner be also disbursed as per the said scheme.