The Union Of India And Ors vs Mostt. Ram Pyari @ Muli Devi
2023 Latest Caselaw 4309 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      Letters Patent Appeal No.186 of 2016
                                        In
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6930 of 1999
     ======================================================

1. The Union Of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighter Division, Arya Samaj Cell, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, NEw Delhi

2. The Joint Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Home, Freedom Fighter Division, Arya Samaj Cell, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi at present 2nd Floor, NDCC-II Building, Jai Singh Road New Delhi- 110001

3. The Union Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Home, Freedom Fighter Division, Arya Samaj Cell, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi at present 2nd Floor, NDCC-II Building, Jai Singh Road New Delhi- 110001

... ... Appellant/s Versus Mostt. Ram Pyari @ Muli Devi Wife of Late Prayag Sah Arya, Resident of Ahirpurwa, P.O.- Arrah, P.S.- Arrah, District- Bhojpur

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Dr. K.N.Singh, Addl.S.G.

Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, CGC For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anish Chandra Sinha, Advocate Mr. Krishna Murari Raut, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 05-09-2023

1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that her

husband who is said to have associated himself with the Arya

Samaj movement in the State of Hyderabad; which is treated at

par with the freedom fighters movement, has not been granted

freedom fighters pension by the Central Government. The

petitioner's husband is said to have been arrested and convicted

and sentenced for one and half years. He was imprisoned in the Patna High Court L.P.A No.186 of 2016 dt.05-09-2023

Central prison at Hyderabad but the date of release is not

mentioned. It was also contended that he was released as per the

orders of the Nizam.

2. Learned Single Judge found that he had produced the

certificate issued by the Jail Superintendent as well as the

certificate issued by the co-accused Sri Ram Narayan Prasad

and others who were getting pension under the scheme and were

imprisoned along with him in the Central prison at Hyderabad.

The learned Single Judge found that since he was released on

account of the Nizam's birth day, he is entitled to the benefit

under the scheme going by the decision of the Surja and others

versus Union of India and another [(1991) 4 SCC 366] which

held that any person who was associated with the Arya Samaj

movement in the State of Hyderabad and had completed six

months imprisonment, would be entitled to pension under the

scheme. The learned Single Judge found that persons who were

convicted for higher period but released on account of birth day

of Nizam will not make him disentitled to the benefit.

3. It is immediately noticed that the petitioner herself

produced Annexure-6 judgment of a Single Judge of this Court

in a writ petition filed by her for identical relief wherein the

learned Single Judge had found that if the petitioner's husband Patna High Court L.P.A No.186 of 2016 dt.05-09-2023

had served imprisonment at Hyderabad then necessarily there

should be a recommendation issued from the Government of

Andhra Pradesh. Finding no such recommendation the writ

petition was rejected. The writ petitioner produces the judgment

and contends that there is no such recommendation required for

grant of family pension. If that was the contention, the petitioner

should have taken an appeal from Annexue-6 judgment and

could not have approached this Court with a further writ

petition; which was allowed by the learned Single Judge.

4. We find absolutely no reason to entertain the

subsequent writ petition especially in the context of the

dismissal of the earlier writ petition for the very same relief.

5. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is

set aside, dismissing the writ petition.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

( Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash/Saurabh AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 08.09.2023 Transmission Date