JAGDAMBA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Union of India.

(2.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2006, Annexure-6 passed by the competent authority of the Union Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, whereunder claim of the Petitioner for grant of dependents' family pension under Swatantra Senani Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) has been rejected holding that husband of the Petitioner remained in jail custody for only 13 days, whereas minimum jail suffering required for being eligible for such pension is six months. Order dated 15.11.2006, Annexure-6 is challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that earlier she had questioned the order dated 26.7.2000 rejecting her claim for grant of dependents' family pension by filing C.W.J.C. No. 9903 of 2001, which was allowed under orders dated 25.8.2006, Annexure-5 setting aside order dated 26.7.2000 holding as follows:

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order in the instant case, though quoted the aforesaid findings but in effect has not relied over the same and again refused the request for grant of dependents' family pension under the Scheme to the Petitioner. It is submitted that such approach of the competent authority of the Union Government not to rely on the findings of the High Court is contrary to the settled norms as the authorities are duty bound to rely on the finding of this Court that husband of the Petitioner remained absconding from 16.8.1942 to 14.10.1944 which is more than six months and Petitioner is qualified for being granted dependents' family pension under the Scheme. Learned Counsel further submitted that if the authorities were of the view that findings of the High Court are not based on the documents referred to in the order of the High Court, they ought to have challenged the said findings by filing appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, but the authorities could not have sat in judgment over the findings of the learned Single Judge so as to dispel the same by recording different reasons. Learned Counsel also submitted that such approach on the part of the authorities infracts the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata, which is attracted even in administrative matters. In support of the aforesaid contention learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal and Ors. v. Smt. Deorajin Debi and Anr., 1960 AIR(SC) 941, State of West Bengal v. Hemant Kumar Bhattacharjee and Ors., 1966 AIR(SC) 1061 and P.K. Vijayan v. Kamalakshi Amma and Ors., 1994 AIR(SC) 2145.