Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 267 (CAL)

Union of India v. Angur Bala Bhanja

2017-03-08

NISHITA MHATRE, TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. 1. As we have invited the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties to address us on merits of the appeal, we condone the delay towards preference of the instant appeal and allow the application being CAN No. 7045 of 2016. 2. A procrastinated legal battle pertaining to grant of pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said scheme) culminated in an order dated 21st January, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 7469 (W) of 2000 upholding the claim towards grant of pension under the said scheme. The said order dated 21st January, 2016 is under challenge in the instant appeal. 3. The undisputed facts are that Niranjan Kumar Bhanja submitted an application for pension under the said scheme on 14th August, 1981 accompanied with a Personal Knowledge Certificate (hereinafter referred to as PKC) of a prominent freedom fighter, namely, Rabindra Nath Giri. The claim towards grant of such pension was recommended by the State Government vide memorandum dated 4th October, 1989. As no final order was passed by the appellants herein, writ petition being W.P. No. 21035 (W) 1998 was preferred which was disposed of by an order dated 14th June, 1999 directing the appellants to consider the claim with due regard to the order passed in C.O. No. 1067 of 1998 (Gokul Ch. Panja Vs. Union of India & Ors.). Pursuant thereto, the appellant no.2 rejected such claim by an order dated 13th September, 1999 which was again challenged by a writ petition being W.P. No. 20627 (W) 1999. The said writ petition was thereafter disposed of by an order dated 4th October, 1999 setting aside the impugned order dated 13th September, 1999 and directing the Central Government to release pension amount to the petitioner. The appellants did not prefer any appeal against the said order dated 4th October, 1999 and the appellant no.2 passed an order dated 9th February, 2000 intimating, inter alia, that the matter has been examined and sanction has been accorded to grant provisional pension in favour of the writ petitioner. Subsequent thereto, by a notice dated 28th February, 2000 written by a person for the under Secretary to the Government of India, the provisional pension sanctioned in favour of the writ petitioner was cancelled. Subsequent thereto, by a notice dated 28th February, 2000 written by a person for the under Secretary to the Government of India, the provisional pension sanctioned in favour of the writ petitioner was cancelled. The said order was again challenged by a writ petition being W.P. No.7469 (W) of 2000 and in the same an interim order was passed on 12th June, 2000 staying the operation of the impugned order dated 28th February, 2000. During pendency of the writ petition Niranjan Kumar Bhanja expired on 14th February, 2001 and his widow pursued the said litigation upon substitution. The said writ petition was finally heard by this Court and allowed by an order dated 21st January, 2016 setting aside the order dated 28th February, 2000. 4. Scrutiny of the records reveal that the ground for rejection of the claim towards pension contained in the orders dated 13th September, 1999 and 28th February, 2000 passed by the appellant no. 2 are almost identical. The claim towards pension was primarily denied on the ground that no supporting document could be produced by Niranjan Kumar Bhanja to prove that either detention orders were passed against him or he was declared a proclaimed offender or there was an award for his arrest and that he went underground voluntarily as per direction of the leader. The said reasoning given by the appellant no.2 in the order dated 13th September, 1999 had already been set aside in the earlier round of litigation by an order of this Court dated 4th October, 1999 and no appeal was preferred against the same by the appellants herein. Furthermore, the order dated 28th February, 2000 was passed being oblivious of the fact that the claim for pension had already been recommended by the State Government by a memorandum dated 4th October, 1989 and that the District Magistrate had certified that the records pertaining to the period from 1930 to 1946 are not available. While passing the said order dated 28th February, 2000, the appellant no.2 also did not take note of the fact that the claim of the respondent no.1 was directed to be considered in the light of the judgment delivered in Gokul Ch. Panja (Supra) and that the appeal preferred against the judgment delivered in Gokul Ch. While passing the said order dated 28th February, 2000, the appellant no.2 also did not take note of the fact that the claim of the respondent no.1 was directed to be considered in the light of the judgment delivered in Gokul Ch. Panja (Supra) and that the appeal preferred against the judgment delivered in Gokul Ch. Panja (Supra) had already been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court and thereafter the appeal preferred against the same before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dismissed. 5. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the appellants argues that the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition did not take into consideration the revised policy guidelines for disbursement of Central Samman Pensions dated 6th August, 2014. Such contention is not acceptable to this Court since the revised guidelines can have no manner of application in respect of a claim for pension submitted on 14th August, 1981. Furthermore, the claim was directed to be considered in the light of the judgment dated 2nd September, 1998 delivered in the case of Gokul Ch. Panja (Supra), against which the appeal preferred by the appellants herein was dismissed both by the Division Bench of this Court and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. Mr. Ghosh further argues that the PKC issued by Rabindra Nath Giri has been certified “to the best of my knowledge and belief” and not as “true to knowledge” and as such no reliance can be placed upon the same. According to him, there has been a failure on the part of the applicant to produce relevant documents in support of the fact that he went underground as he was a proclaimed offender or as he was one on whom an award for arrest was announced or as he was one for whose detention, an order was issued but not served. In support of such argument reliance has been placed upon a common judgment delivered in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Smt. Suvadra Bala Paul & Ors and Smt. Atul Bala Maity vs. The Union of India & Ors. 7. In support of such argument reliance has been placed upon a common judgment delivered in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Smt. Suvadra Bala Paul & Ors and Smt. Atul Bala Maity vs. The Union of India & Ors. 7. A perusal of the said judgment delivered in the case of Smt. Suvadra Bala Paul (Supra) reveals that the Hon’ble Court upon considering the facts involved in the said lis arrived at a finding that no case could be made out by the writ petitioner to show that he had any right to get the pension and that the certificate submitted by the petitioner therein was not in conformity with the requirement of the said scheme. In the instant case the PKC was issued in the prescribed form and the authenticity of the same had never been challenged by the appellants. Furthermore, by the order dated 14th June, 1999 passed in W.P. No. 21035 (W) of 1998 the appellants were directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner in the light of the judgment delivered in C.O. No. 1067 of 1998 (Gokul Ch. Panja Vs. Union of India & Ors.) and that the said judgment, having not been appealed against by the appellants, is binding amongst the parties inter se. In Gokul Ch. Panja (Supra), the Hon’ble Court considered the provisions of the Police Regulation of Bengal, 1943 and scrutinised the records pertaining to village crime note book in respect of different villages including the village of Niranjan Kumar Bhanja, namely, Ghorathakur (sic Ghorathakuria) it was found that the entries in the village crime note book do not relate to the period from 1942 to 1944 and that in such circumstances it was observed that it is only the personal knowledge certificate which has to be accepted. The factual scenario involved in the case of Gokul Ch. Panja (Supra) is identical to the facts of the instant case and in such circumstances it would be inequitable to mete out dissimilar treatment to a similarly placed person. 8. The arguments advanced by Mr. Ghosh also do not feature in the order impugned in the writ petition and the validity of the said order was rightly judged by the learned Single Judge on the reasons mentioned in the order impugned. 9. 8. The arguments advanced by Mr. Ghosh also do not feature in the order impugned in the writ petition and the validity of the said order was rightly judged by the learned Single Judge on the reasons mentioned in the order impugned. 9. The learned Single Judge upon dealing with all the factual issues has arrived at specific findings and we do not find any error in the same. The order impugned in the appeal does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or any manifest injustice warranting interference of this Court. 10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 11. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the application for stay being CAN No. 7047 of 2016 has become infructuous and the same is also dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.