RAM KUMAR BHAGAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this writ petition relates to Freedom Fighter 's Pension under the Freedom Fighter 's Pension Scheme, 1972 as amended by Freedom Fighter 's Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Central Government vide letter dated 28.7.97 contained in an nexure 14 of the writ petition. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said order/letter and directions to grant him Freedom Fighter 's pension.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to have suffered 'shoot ' injury in his right leg in course of occurrence during the 1942 freedom movement, and relies on the letter of the Special Officer, Political Department, Government of Bihar dated 22.10.51 by which a cash grant of Rs. 200/ - was recommended for him. From the contents of the said letter, copy whereof has been enclosed as annexure 2 to the writ petition, it appears that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Bihar Political Sufferers Relief Committee which recommended a cash grant of Rs. 200/ - which was actually paid vide memo no. 15246 dated 24.11.51 of the Political Department (Spl. Section) Government of Bihar.

(3.) SMT . Anjana Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned decision of the Central Government is contrary to the terms of the pension scheme as well as law laid down by the Supreme Court in R. Narayan vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 746. She drew my attention to the eligibility part of the pension scheme. Sub -clause 3(e) of the Explanation appended to clause 4 contains the eligibility clause, which is relevant for the purpose of this case, runs as follows : "A person who become permanently incapacitated during firing or lathi charge." Counsel submitted that for being eligible to claim pension under the aforesaid Clause, it is not necessary that the person should have suffered a total disability, what the Clause contemplates is that the disability should be permanent in nature. She highlighted the distinction between disability being in total and permanent, and in this connection relied on N. Narayanan 's case (supra).