Sarda Devi vs The Union of India (UOI) and Others

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.—I begin this order with a prefatory note. The freedom fighters are not getting the respect which they deserve, perhaps the sovereign suspect their claim. The sovereign plea that freedom fighters moving in the train and other places on account of facilities provided to freedom fighters, in fact, never contributed in the liberation of the country and had obtained freedom fighter samman pension by fraud, misrepresentation and connivance of the State Government and the Central Government. The case in hand proved their point.

Petitioner''s husband besides 26 other persons were sanctioned pension under the Freedom Fighter Samman Pension Scheme. The aforesaid pension was granted to Petitioner''s husband on the basis of the recommendation, said to have been made by the State Government. The matter of grant of pension to various persons illegally claiming to be the freedom fighter came to the notice of this Court in a public interest litigation, which was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 10638 of 2001. In the light of the direction of this Court, the matter was examined by the State Government and it was found that 27 persons, which included the Petitioner''s husband, were granted freedom fighter pension without the recommendation of the State Advisory Committee of the State Government.

Pensions to such persons including the Petitioner were initially suspended and thereafter they were issued notices dated 18.1.2002 to show cause as to why their pension be not cancelled. Petitioner submitted her reply and the Central Government, by the impugned order dated 4th of March, 2002 (Annexure-7), rescinded the order granting pension from the date of its sanction and directed for recovery of the pension amount already withdrawn. It is this order, which the Petitioner has challenged in the present application.

Mr. Indu Bhushan Prasad, appears on behalf of the Petitioner whereas the Union of India is represented by its counsel Ms. Shashi Ranjan, J.C. to G.P.VII appears on behalf of the State.

Mr. Prasad submits that there is nothing on the record to suggest that the case of the Petitioner was not recommended by the State Advisory Committee and the foundation of the impugned order being non-est the order of the Central Government cancelling the pension is illegal in the eye of law.

The Respondent on an inquiry made by it, had come to the conclusion that the case of the Petitioner was never recommended by the State Advisory Committee. There is no reason to disbelieve the said stand of the Respondents. It is relevant here to state that other persons who had got the pension on the basis of the purported recommendation of the State Advisory Committee, as that of the Petitioner''s husband and where pension were also rescinded had challenged the said action in a writ application filed before this Court which was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 5919 of 2002 Ram Prasad Singh v. Union of India and Ors. Reported in 2002 (4) PUR 46 and in the said case this Court observed as follows:

As it transpired that those cases were never recommended by the State Govt. it was evident and manifest that the pensions were wrongly granted to 27 persons and hence the decision for cancellation of their pension.

Mr. Indu Bhushan Prasad submitted that if the communication from the State Govt. had incorrect date or issue number, it was not for the Petitioner but for the State Govt. to explain the anomaly. He insisted that the State Govt. must be asked to file a counter affidavit explaining the anomaly in the issue number and date etc. in its communication to the Central Government. At the same time he made the tongue in cheek remark that the State Govt. would find it impossible to file a counter affidavit in this case because the records of the case were no longer available in the State Govt. office. I find the actions and the behavior of the Petitioner quite shocking. It appears that he not only secured pension in his favour by adopting fraudulent means but further that he is still upto mischiefs in order to cover up his past misdeeds and he does not hesitate in resorting to such actions as removal of the records from the Government office.

The said judgment was assailed before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 1220 of 2002 Ram Prasad Singh v. The Union of India and Ors. in which it has been observed as follows:

The issue itself is about freedom fighter''s pension of which the Government of India and the State of Bihar have made inquiries and some of the persons who had initially been granted pensions, after verification and inquiries, saw these pensions stopped. The Petitioner was one such person. If the two Governments, the Central Government and the State Government have verified the records and found that the Petitioner was one such person who was not entitled to receive political sufferers pension, the Court was of the opinion that it ought not to interfere. In fact in the context of the said order, the Court recommended that in such cases the authorities concerned should launch a First Information Report of pensions which had been earned by misrepresentation. The Court has no reason to take another opinion. The order of the learned judge is certified as correct.

The case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the decision referred to above.

Mr. Prasad then submits that the decision to direct recovery in relation to the amount which was not paid to the Petitioner but her husband is fit to be quashed. In this connection, he has drawn my attention to the following observation of this Court dated 14.5.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1447 of 2002 Gayatri Devi v. The Union of India and Ors.:

It is, hereby directed that within eight weeks of the receipt/submission of a copy of this order the concerned officer shall pass a speaking order in the matter. While passing the order the concerned officer shall take into consideration that if the pension order is to be recalled, then whether the order for recovery of pension should be made against the widow who herself did not receive pension because during life time of her husband the pension was received by her husband.

Petitioner is free to make the representation for the aforesaid relief. Needless to state that in case such a representation is made within ten weeks the Union of India shall take decision in accordance with law expeditiously preferable within a period of three months from the receipt of such representation.

In the result, I do not find any merit in this application, and it is dismissed accordingly, with the observation aforesaid. No cost.