UNION OF INDIA Vs. SADANAND PODDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India and its authorities have preferred this Intra-Court appeal for setting aside the order dated 04.08.2011 passed by the learned Writ Court in CWJC No.1112 of 2010 by which the Writ Court has been pleased to allow the prayers of the petitioners holding that the order dated 18.09.2009 as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application depriving the petitioner from Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension under the Scheme of 1980 is bad in law, thereupon the appellants have been directed to restore the pension of the petitioner forthwith and also to pay the arrears within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants has placed before us the reasoned order dated 18th September, 2009 issued under the signature of Under Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application. It is submitted that earlier the Writ Court while hearing CWJC No.7136 of 2005 had held that the petitioner who was earlier granted pension cannot be deprived of the same on the ground that he was only 13 years old in the year 1942 when he is said to have participated in the freedom struggle, but while holding so the learned Writ Court remitted the matter back to the Central Government to reconsider the matter strictly in accordance with the policy and to pass a fresh order. It is in compliance of the said order the authorities concerned examined the case of the petitioner vis-'-vis the scheme whereunder it is specifically provided that any applicant who claims undergoing suffering is eligible for grant of pension provided he fulfills the following conditions:-

(3.) After examining the claim of the petitioner it was found that he was not eligible for grant of pension because there was no primary evidence by way of court's/Government's order proclaiming the applicant as an absconder, announcing an award on his head or for his arrest or ordering his detention. The petitioner has failed to produce a valid non-availability of record certificate (NARC) from the competent authorities i.e. the State Government containing all ingredients prescribed therefore, in absence of valid 'NARC' the secondary i.e. Personal Knowledge Certificate cannot be considered and is not acceptable. The petitioner had submitted certificate from the record room dated 6.1986 which cannot be treated as 'NARC' and was not found fit to be relied upon. The authorities while considering the case of the petitioner held that the letter dated 17.12.1987 from the Registrar of the Bhagalpur Court to the Under Secretary, Home Department, Bihar it may be found that since the record had been destroyed, no other information can be provided. The information provided cannot be said to be confirmation of involvement of the individual in the case mentioned by the petitioner.