Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1607 (ALL)

Malti Devi v. State of U. P.

2016-04-28

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT The petitioner claims the benefit of the pension provided to freedom fighters and their dependents by the State of Uttar Pradesh in pursuance of a Government Order dated 15 April 1991. According to the petitioner, her husband Sri Ram Prasad was a freedom fighter who died on 25 April 1998. In an earlier writ petition, this Court by an order dated 11 August 2015 directed that the representation of the petitioner be considered in accordance with law by the competent authority. Eventually, the representation was rejected on 18 January 2016 by an order of the Principal Secretary to the State Government in the department concerned dealing with the grant of pensions to freedom fighters. The Principal Secretary has noted that in pursuance of the orders of this Court, the Collector Mau in his letter dated 21 November 2015 stated that a report had been obtained from the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 16 November 2015. The report of the SDM indicates that the date of birth of the husband of the petitioner is 6 July 1937, in which event, he would have been only about five or six years of age when the Quit India Movement took place in 1942. This finding is sought to be questioned by the petitioner on the basis of the earlier reports of the SDM inter alia dated 21 April 2006 and 20 May 2006, copies of which are annexed to the writ petition. 2. In our view, there is merit in the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice since a copy of the report of the SDM dated 16 November 2015 and the communication of the Collector dated 21 November 2015 were not provided to the petitioner to controvert them and submit her explanation. Hence, we deem it appropriate and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the proceedings back to the State Government for fresh decision. The petitioner shall, on the production of a certified copy of this order, be provided with a copy of the communication dated 21 November 2015 and the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 16 November 2015, preferably within a period of one month. The petitioner would be at liberty to submit her explanation thereafter with reference to the report within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt. The petitioner would be at liberty to submit her explanation thereafter with reference to the report within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt. The State Government shall pass a fresh order preferably within a period of three months. The petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 3. However, we clarify that we have not made any observation on the merits of the case since this order is only founded on the principles of natural justice, having been breached.