Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 260 (ALL)

Harish Chandra Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2017-01-18

A.P.SAHI, SANJAY HARKAULI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the State Government refusing to accept the claim of the petitioner for grant of freedom fighter's pension on the ground that the petitioner has been unable to procure any evidence or produce any proof of probative value so as to make the government believe that the petitioner had suffered imprisonment during the Quit India Movement in 1942. 3. The matter had been assailed previously in two writ petitions being writ petition Nos. 1718 (MB) of 2005 and 2958 (MB) of 2011. The petitions were disposed of setting aside the previous order passed on 17.08.2002 for reconsideration in the light of the directions issued therein. 4. The State Government was called upon to examine the record and after hearing the petitioner, proceed to pass an order in relation to the claim of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner's contention was that he being an eight year old child, had accompanied his mother to jail, who had been detained during the Quit India Movement. It was also the case of the petitioner that his mother had been jailed along with certain other freedom fighters who have been given and extended the benefit of such pension and consequently, in view of the Freedom Fighter Pension Rules, which also provides for accepting such evidence, the benefit ought to have been extended to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that such statements through affidavits have been discarded by the State Government for no valid reason and consequently, the impugned order is vitiated inasmuch as there is no rational basis for not accepting the statement given by such persons. 6. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid fact of the petitioner having gone to jail has been ignored by the respondents for no valid reason and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 7. Replying to the said contentions, learned Standing Counsel submits that firstly no child above the age of six years, according to the jail manual, can be permitted to accompany an accused or a convict in jail. Secondly, no records of the jail were available to demonstrate any such entry either of the petitioner's mother or of the petitioner. 7. Replying to the said contentions, learned Standing Counsel submits that firstly no child above the age of six years, according to the jail manual, can be permitted to accompany an accused or a convict in jail. Secondly, no records of the jail were available to demonstrate any such entry either of the petitioner's mother or of the petitioner. Thirdly, there is no judicial pronouncement or any document of judicial proceeding or even otherwise any other official document worth the name to demonstrate that the petitioner had been detained along with his mother in jail during the Quit India Movement. 8. So far as the affidavits on which reliance has been placed, learned Standing Counsel has invited the attention of the Court to paragraph 9 and 10 of the impugned order to contend that the period during which those persons are treated to have been detained in jail is for the period, which is different from the period of detention shown by the petitioner and therefore, the State Government has rightly disbelieved the petitioner's case on the ground that the petitioner has failed to connect his allegation of detention with the period of detention of those persons. It is, therefore, submitted that the photostat copy of the jail journey certificate was rightly disbelieved as it could not be verified in the absence of any records available to that effect in jail. It was also submitted that the Superintendent of Jail had clearly intimated the authorities that no such record was available particularly, the convict register, so as to indicate any entry in favour of the petitioner or his mother. 9. It is in this background that the learned Standing Counsel submits that the State Government came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish his case of having suffered any incarceration along with his mother and, therefore, he is not entitled to the freedom fighter's pension. 10. A passing argument has also been made by the learned Standing Counsel on the strength of the date of birth of the petitioner disclosed in the voter's identity card, which has been filed in support of the affidavit, where the age of the petitioner as on 01.01.1995 has been shown as 51 years. 10. A passing argument has also been made by the learned Standing Counsel on the strength of the date of birth of the petitioner disclosed in the voter's identity card, which has been filed in support of the affidavit, where the age of the petitioner as on 01.01.1995 has been shown as 51 years. Learned Standing Counsel submits that if the petitioner was 51 years of age in 1995, then he was not even born in 1942 and, therefore, the entire story of going to jail is based on a contention, which has no supporting documents to substantiate the same. 11. We have considered all the submissions raised and leaving aside the last argument of the learned Standing Counsel with regard to the age of the petitioner, what we find is that the State Government had procured information from all possible sources namely, the District Magistrate, the Jail authorities as well as the affidavits on which the reliance had been placed by the petitioner and ultimately came to the conclusion that there was no documentary evidence available to substantiate the claim of the petitioner. The affidavits filed of the respective persons in support of the petitioner did not match with the period of detention of the petitioner. 12. In view of the aforesaid, we have not been able to find any reason to disbelieve the aforesaid finding recorded by the State Government particularly in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the impugned order and in the absence of any material adverse to the same, it cannot be said that the order is perverse or is based on an incorrect finding. There is no merit in the petition. 13. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.