Ramanand Singh vs Union of India and Others

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—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. 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.

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:-

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 (NARC) from the State Government (i.e., the competent authority), having all ingredients prescribed therefore (as indicated in para 3 above).

(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.

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.

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 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.

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. 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.