Delhi High Court
Ramanand Singh Through Lrs vs Union Of India And Ors. on 22 August, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 549/2010
% 22nd August , 2013
RAMANAND SINGH THROUGH LRS ......Petitioners
Through: Mr. I.C. Mishra, Advocate with Ms.
Swati Chakraborty, Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Advocate with
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition was filed by late Sh. Ramanand Singh
claiming freedom fighter's pension. Sh. Ramanand Singh has expired
during the pendency of this case and his legal heirs being his widow and his
sons have been substituted in his place.
W.P.(C) No.549 /2010 Page 1 of 5
2. As per the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, a
person has to file his application supported by the necessary documents to
the Central Government. The Central Government then sends this
application to the State Government for verification and recommendation.
After the State Government's report on the verification of the documents and
giving its recommendation, Central Government thereafter decides as to
whether or not pension has to be paid.
3. In the present case, the Central Government by its order dated
25/27.1.2010 has given the following reasons for rejecting the claim of late
Sh. Ramanand Singh:-
"4. After examination of the claim, it is found that Ramanand Singh is
not eligible for grant of Central Samman pension due to the following
shortcomings/discrepancies:-
(i) He had not furnished record-based primary evidence, duly verified
by the State Government, in support of his claimed underground
suffering (as indicated in para 3 above).
(ii) In addition, the extract of the list of disposal record document,
furnished by the applicant in support of his claimed underground
suffering, does not indicate the exact period of his underground
suffering. It does not indicate whether Shri Ramanand Singh went on
absconsion on being (i) a proclaimed offender (ii) one on whom an
award for arrest/head was announced; or (iii) one whose detention order
was issued but not served, As such, this cannot be accepted as a record
based document for establishing his eligibility for grant of pension (as
indicated in para 3 above).
(iii) He has not furnished a valid Non-availability of Records
Certificate (NARC0 from the State Government (i.e., the competent
authority), having all ingredients prescribed therefore (as indicated in
para 3 above).
W.P.(C) No.549 /2010 Page 2 of 5
(iv) In the absence of a valid NARC, secondary evidence, i.e., Personal
Knowledge Certificates (PKCs) cannot be considered and are not
acceptable. However, copy of the PKCs submitted by him from Shri
Sheetal Prasad Singh and Shri Yamuna Singh have been scrutinized.
The same are not acceptable as the certifiers have not furnished any
record/evidence of their own jail sufferings of minimum two years (i.e.,
they have furnished no evidence to establish that they are eligible
certifiers). Moreover, they have certified the underground suffering of
the applicant for the period when they were themselves in jail.
(v) State Government's letter does not provide any verification of his
claimed suffering from official record.
(vi) State Government has not made any specific recommendation for
grant of pension
(vii) State Advisory Committee's recommendation is not
acceptable as it is not based on any evidence and is not in accordance
with the requirement of the SSP Pension Scheme, 1980."
4. This order dated 25/27.1.2010 was passed before filing of the
writ petition but in the writ petition this order is not challenged. In any case,
I have independently examined the issues which have been set out in para 4
of the rejection order dated 25/27.1.2010 and heard the petitioner's counsel
on those aspects.
5. Two aspects are clear. First is that the record being GR 572 of
42 was not verified as correct by the State Government. The second aspect
is that since this record was not verified, petitioner was entitled to lead
secondary evidence and which he did by filing of Personal Knowledge
Certificates of one Sh. Sheetal Prasad Singh and another Sh. Yamuna Singh.
These Personal Knowledge Certificates which are to be filed are to be of a
W.P.(C) No.549 /2010 Page 3 of 5
freedom fighter who have undergone jail suffering of minimum of two
years. The certificates of Sh. Sheetal Prasad Singh and Sh. Yamuna Singh
have been rejected on the ground that there is no record filed that Sh. Sheetal
Prasad Singh and Sh. Yamuna Singh had jail suffering of minimum of two
years.
Other aspects mentioned in para 4 of the letter dated
25/27.1.2010 are not material.
6. I asked counsel for the petitioner to show me any proof that the
State Government has verified the GR 572 of 42 filed as Annexure P2 to the
writ petition but the counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any
document on the record showing that the State Government has verified
Annexure P2 as correct. Once that is not so the basis of rejection given as
per para 4(i) of the letter dated 25/27.1.2010 is justified. I further put it to
the counsel for the petitioner to show me as to how any documents have
been filed in this Court to show that Sh. Sheetal Prasad Singh and Sh.
Yamuna Singh have had jail suffering of a minimum of two years, but, the
counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show to me any certified
document that Sh. Sheetal Prasad Singh and Sh. Yamuna Singh were entitled
to give Personal Knowledge Certificates because they had their own jail
suffering of minimum of two years.
W.P.(C) No.549 /2010 Page 4 of 5
7. In view of the above, I do not find that there is any merit in the
petition, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their
own costs.
AUGUST 22, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
