JPENDRA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this Letters Patent relates to the entitlement of the appellant, to claim of Freedom Fighters Pension. To commemorate the 25th Anniversary of Independence, the Government of India introduced a scheme called Swatantrata Senani Samman Pension Scheme, 1972, for grant of pension to Freedom Fighters or to his dependent, if they were not alive. The appellant made application for such a grant, which was rejected on 19.8.86 on the ground of insufficient evidence. He filed a fresh application sometime in 1988. The Home (Special) Department of the State Government asked him to file proof in support of his claim. The concerned District Magistrate was also asked to verify the claim. The appellant filed plain typed copy of the General Register (G.R.) showing that he was a named accused in a criminal case under section 144 I.P.C. vide G.R. 623/59/42 with respect to an occurrence which had taken place on 29.8.42. He also later filed a certified copy of the relevant entry of the G.R. The dispute arose as to the correctness/genuineness of the document inasmuch as while in the typed copy aforesaid the name of the appellant was shown in the category "also", in the certified copy his name was shown in the category of absconders ("abs"). On 16.3.89 the District Magistrate, Madhepura, informed the State Government that the certified copy had been issued from the Record Room and was a genuine document. The claim of the appellant, accordingly, was considered favourably by the State Advisory Committee. The State Government vide letter dated 26.4.91, thereafter, sent its recommendation supporting the appellants claim for grant of pension. The Government of India, however, on 8.2.93 rejected the claim on the ground that the document did not mention about the final orders of the Court. Another ground assigned for rejecting the claim was that while the State Government had spoused his claim on the ground of being absconder (under ground) from 29.8.42 to 31.5.46, in the application the appellant had claimed pension on the basis of arrest. The appellant made fresh representation. On 17.8.93 the State Government again recommended his case. From perusal of the said letter, copy whereof is to be found at Annexure -D to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, it appears that the State Government noticed the fact that G.R. 623/59/42 had been registered against one Chhedi Jha and 32 others. On 29.1.43 chargesheet was submitted in the case showing 10 accused in custody and the rest as absconders. The name of the appellant figures at serial no. 10 in the absconders category. The State Government, accordingly, concluded that the period of absconding was more than six months and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to pension. The State Government also informed the Government of India that many of the accused whose names find place in the said G.R. have already been allowed Freedom Fighters Pension by the Central Government. Their names along with the particulars of P.P.O. number were enclosed with the said letter dated 17.8.93. The Central Government not being apparently satisfied with the reply of the State Government made query from the State Government vide its letter dated 15.10.93, copy at Annexure -C to the counter affidavit of the Union of India. It also made reference to the District Magistrate on 25.2.94. The District Magistrate vide his letter no.84 -1 dated 31.5.94 informed the Additional Secretary,. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, that the certified copy of the G.R. had been verified from the original record and there appears to be interpolations in the original record i.e. G.R. itself. In view of the said letter of the District Magistrate the Central Government again rejected the claim of the appellant, which was communicated to him by letter dated 3.8.94. The appellant challenged the said order by way of writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 10031 of 1994. The said writ petition having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, he has preferred his Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) FROM perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 5.9.95 it would appear that the writ petition was rejected on the ground that G.R. produced by the appellant in support of his claim had been found to be fabricated. The learned Single Judge also took into account the discrepancy in the two copies furnished by the appellant containing two different expressions "also" and "abs" as indicated above. Having regard to the nature of the controversy, we thought it appropriate to look into the original records, which we accordingly sent for. The original record, namely, G.R. has since been produced.

(3.) HAVING examined the contents of the G.R. with the assistance of the counsel for the parties, we are fully satisfied that the same does not contain any interpolation whatsoever. It may be mentioned even at the cost of repetition here that the respondents did not dispute that the certified copy produced by the appellant tallies with the relevant entries in the G.R.; their definite case is that G.R. itself is fabricated by reason of interpolation having been made therein.