RAM CHANDRA RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Arun Kumar Upadhyay for petitioner and Dr. Ashok Nigam assisted by Sri Kashi Nath singh appearing for respondent No. 1. Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

(2.) PETITIONER, who has earlier approached this Court by means of an earlier writ petition, claims that though he is entitled for freedom fighter's pension granted by the Central Government, but has not been given the same. On the aforesaid writ petition, this Court has directed petitioner to file a representation and further directed respondent Union of India to decide petitioner's representation. Pursuant to the aforesaid t rections, the Central Government by the impugned order dated 27th August, 2007 rejected petitioner's representation for grant of Freedom Fighter's Pension from the Central Government on the ground that petitioner does not come within the four grounds, that is, (i) He has not furnished any record-based primary evidence, duly verified by the State government, in support of his claim that his suffering entitled him to the pension (as indicated in para 3), (ii) He has not furnished a valid Non-Availability of records Certificate (N. A. R. C.) from the State Government (i. e. , the competent authority) containing all ingredients prescribed therefor (as indicated in para 3 above), (iii) In the absence of a valid N. A. R. C. , secondary evidence, i. e. , Personal Knowledge Certificate (P. K. Cs.) for going underground cannot be considered and are not acceptable, and (iv) The Central pension scheme and the State pension scheme are two separate and distinct schemes and are governed by separate rules, grant of pension by State government does not entitle grant of pension by the Central Government, unless requirements prescribed by Central Government are fulfilled.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner miserably failed to demonstrate from the materials on record that any of the objections of the Central government refusing freedom fighter's pension to the petitioner is either not correct or that these findings are perverse and suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. Sri Upadhyay submits that in the similar circumstances, this Court has passed an interim order in the other matters. He further says that other persons have been granted freedom fighter's pension by the Central government, therefore, petitioner claims parity.