Delhi High Court
Sh. Biltu Roy & Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 16 January, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.4344/2010
% January 16, 2013
SH. BILTU ROY & ANR. ...... Petitioners
Through: Mr. I.C. Mishra, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Atul Batra, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition seeks a direction for payment to the
petitioners of pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension
Scheme (SSS Pension), and as per which scheme a person who was an
absconder for over six months is granted this pension.
2. The petitioners have pleaded that they were absconders and
ultimately the criminal case against them and 37 other persons (i.e a total of
39 persons) was withdrawn by the order of Mr. S.S. Prasad, Ist Class
Magistrate, Madhubani, Bihar on 31.5.1946. The petitioners plead that one
Mr. Sukhai Thakur and whose name is found at serial No.29 of the very
same GR No.834/1942 has by virtue of the order of a Division Bench of this
Court in L.P.A. No.372/2012 been granted pension from the date of filing of
the writ petition in the year 2012.
3. In my opinion, since the present petitioners are shown at serial
Nos.3 and 10 in the very same GP No.834/1942, the present case is fully
covered by the judgment in L.P.A. No.372/2012 titled as Sh. Sukhai
Thakur Vs. Union of India and Ors. decided on 2.11.2012.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 sought to argue that
the petitioners had to prove that the petitioners were absconders for six
months and the same is not clear from the GR No.834/1942. In my opinion,
once the Division Bench has held that the GR No.834/1942 in which order
was passed on 31.5.1946 by withdrawing the case against 39 persons, and
which persons should be treated as proclaimed offenders, the petitioners who
are accused under the same GR No.834/1942 cannot be denied the benefit.
5. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Division Bench
are paras 6 to 11 and which read as under:-
"6. The photocopy of document being an extract from the order sheet in
the case of Emperor Vs. Rama Nand Das & Others in the Court of Mr.
S.S. Prasad, Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhubani, District Darbhanga, GR
No.834/1942, on which the claim of the appellant hinges, shows that
the 39 accused mentioned therein and in which Mr. Anandi Mahto, Mr.
Panak Lal Sahu and the appellant were included, were absconding and
were discharged on 31.05.1946.
7. The counsel for the appellant has argued that considering that the GR
is of the year 1942 and the 39 accused mentioned therein were said to
be absconding till 31.05.1946, the factum of the appellant having
remained absconding for more than six months as is required to be
eligible for pension under the Scheme is writ large. He has based his
case on the appellant being similarly situated as Mr. Anandi Mahto and
Mr. Panak Lal Sahu who were granted pension on the basis of the same
document, photocopy of which has been produced by the appellant.
8. The respondent Central Government, as would be apparent from a
narration of the contents of their counter affidavit, has not denied
sanction of pension to Mr. Anandi Mahto and Mr. Panak Lal Sahu.
Rather there is no reference to Mr. Panak Lal Sahu in the counter
affidavit and with respect to Mr. Anandi Mahto, it is stated that the
sanction of pension was on different documents.
9. The counsel for the Central Government has produced the original
file relating to Mr. Anandi Mahto before us and which has been
scanned by us. We find the said file to be also containing the same
photocopy i.e. the extract from the order sheet dated 07.12.1962 in GR
No.834/1942 on which the appellant basis his claim. The notings in the
said file record that the original GR No.834/1942 is on the file of Mr.
Manohar Lal Yadav and on the basis thereof pension was sanctioned
with effect from the year 1998, even though Mr. Anandi Mahto had
also applied in the year 1981.
10. The counsel for the respondent has been unable to show as to why,
when on the basis of the same document and facts, pension was
sanctioned to Mr. Anandi Mahto, it should not be sanctioned to the
appellant.
11. We accordingly set aside the order dated 11.04.2012 of the learned
Single Judge and allow W.P.(C) No.2022/2012 filed by the appellant by
quashing the letter dated 14.12.2007 of the respondents No.1&2 of
rejection of the claim for SSS Pension of the appellant. Though the
appellant had claimed pension from the year 1981 and though pension
on similar facts was sanctioned to Mr. Anandi Mahto with effect from
1998, but owing to the delay, laches and acquiescence on the part of the
appellant in preferring the writ petition only in the year 2012 inspite of
rejection of his claim on 14.12.2007, we direct payment of pension to
the appellant with effect from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e.
01.04.2012. We further direct that subject to the appellant complying
with the formalities if any required to be complied with in this regard,
the arrears of pension be released to the appellant within six weeks
from today and future pension be also disbursed as per the Scheme. The
respondents No.1&2 having rejected the claim of the appellant inspite
of the appellant being similarly placed as Mr. Anandi Mahto, we also
impose costs of Rs. 25,000/- payable by the respondents No.1&2 to the
appellant within six weeks from today."
(underlining added)
6. In view of the above, the present writ petition being fully
covered by the judgment in L.P.A. No.372/2012 is allowed and the
petitioners are granted pension under SSS Pension scheme from 1.7.2010.
The petitioners will also be entitled to costs of Rs. 25,000/- each in terms of
the judgment of the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.372/2012. The arrears of
pension be released to the petitioners within six weeks from today on the
petitioners complying with the necessary formalities and future pension to
the petitioners be also disbursed as per the said scheme.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
JANUARY 16, 2013
Ne
