Delhi High Court
Ashwani Kumar Mishra vs Union Of India on 3 May, 2000
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for the grant of pension under the Sainik Samman Pension Scheme w.e.f. 18.6.1982. The case had come up for hearing Yesterday, when none was present on behalf of the petitioner. It was kept on board for today also. Again none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent has nevertheless taken me through the writ petition and the pleadings in a fair manner and I proceed to dispose of this writ petition.
2. The petitioner claims to be a freedom fighter, who took active part in the freedom struggle. He is the son of late Shri Shambhu Dayal Mishra, M.L.A. The petitioner claims that he was imprisoned 3 times during the period 1942-43 and undergone imprisonment for over 6 months during the period 15.8.1942 to 19.9.1942, 2.10.1942 to 3.1.1943 and 20.2.1943 to 10.5.1943. The petitioner also claims to have remained underground for more than 6 months. The petitioner had initially submitted his application on 18.6.1982, which was beyond the last date as applicable at the relevant time. However, this question need not detain us since the date for filling of the applications under this scheme had been extended to 30.6.1985.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that respondents have not been in position to verify the factum of imprisonment of the respondent based on the documents furnished by him. In fact in para 6 of the counter affidavit filed, it is averred:-
"That as per another communication received through the State Government of M.P. issued by the Office of the Superintendent District Jail Hoshangabad vide letter No.1248/95 dated 25.4.95 (a copy is marked as Annexure R-IV) with this reply affidavit addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshangabad that official who had issued letter No.618 dated 02.03.95 had been transferred to some other jail, has been asked to explain and on getting his explanation, the disciplinary action will be taken against the erring official. This apparently shows that the jail certificate itself is not free from doubts and it if is so, then it can safely be assumed that the petitioner has tried to cheat and that can be the only reason why he did not furnish the details of his various convictions."
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in terms of the pension scheme the petitioner was required to either furnish a certificate from the jail authorities certifying the period of imprisonment or in the alternative a certificate from two MPs, MLAs or ex MLAs who were co-prisoners with the petitioner. From the averments made in para 6 of the counter affidavit, it appears that the respondents are doubting the veracity of letter No. 618 dated 2.3.1995 issued by the Jail Officer certifying the petitioner's imprisonment, who is stated to have been transferred to some other jail. The averment made in the counter affidavit is that the explanation of the said jail officer has been called for and disciplinary action would be taken. The respondents appear to have taken a position that as per the jail records, the petitioner did not undergo the period of imprisonment as claimed by him.
Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, as noted above and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, , the order that commends to the court is that, "the respondents should consider the matter afresh, examine the available records to ascertain whether the petitioner underwent the imprisonment as claimed by him in the Hoshangabad Jail, in support of which a certificate from one of the jail officials as referred to in the counter statement had been mentioned. In the event, the respondents are unable to verify the said factum or the record is not available, the respondent shall forthwith communicate the same to the petitioner, who would then be given an opportunity to furnish a certificate by two ex-MPs or MLAs in support of his claim, so that his case could be processed further. The respondents would be at liberty to consider any other material or evidence furnished by the petitioner or available with them in their records having a bearing on the matter.
5. Writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
