GANESH CHANDRA JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dtd. 28/4/2017 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (FFR Division), by which the petitioner has been communicated that the application of the father of the petitioner for grant of freedom fighter Samman pension has been rejected. It is further prayed that the father of the petitioner be granted freedom fighter Samman pension.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the father of the petitioner namely Late Braj Raj Choudhary was a patriot as well as a freedom fighter who suffered a lot during the freedom movement. It is submitted that the Department of Home, Government of Bihar has written to the Under Secretary, Government of India vide letter dtd. 5/8/1992, and recommended for grant of Freedom Fighter Samman pension to the father of the petitioner. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner had remained underground from 15/7/1942 to the month of August, 1945. It is also submitted that the father of the petitioner died in the year 1988, whereafter the matter is being pursued by the petitioner, however, to no avail. Lastly, it is submitted that by a letter dtd. 28/4/2017, the petitioner has been informed that the claim of the father of the petitioner for grant of freedom fighter pension had been rejected long back on 3/11/1993, which is perverse and illegal.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has submitted that only such freedom fighters are eligible for the samman pension who fulfill the criteria mentioned in the Swatantrata Sainik Samman pension scheme by furnishing the proof of claimed sufferings of the nature and in the manner specified in the scheme itself. It is also submitted that the claim of the deceased father of the petitioner was rejected way back in the year 1993 and now after 25 years a belated claim has been set up by filing the present writ petition. It is also submitted that the claim of the father of the petitioner is based on secondary evidence and supported by personal knowledge certificates issued by two freedom fighters but the copy of self jail suffering certificates of both certifiers are not enclosed, which are essential as per the guidelines of SSS Yojana. The pension can be sanctioned only after submission of proof as required in the SSS Yojana and in no other manner. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has also referred to the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Bikash R. and Union of India v. K. Indrasena Reddy to submit that a freedom fighter would be entitled to pension under the SSS Yojana only if he fulfills the eligibility criteria/conditions laid down under the said Yojana. It is further contended that mere recommendation of the State Government is not sufficient and the competent authority before deciding grant of pension must see whether the case of the freedom fighter falls within the eligibility criteria and evidentiary requirements of the SSS Yojana. It is also submitted that as per clause no. 1.5 of the revised policy/guidelines of SSS pension scheme, circulated vide order no. 45/03/2014 FF(P) dtd. 6/8/2014, the petitioner is not eligible to claim freedom fighter pension and any Life Time Arrears of Freedom Fighter pension under the SSS pension scheme. Clause 1.5 reads as follows:-