IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10813 of 2005 CHANDRA NARAYAN JHA Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 2. 3.2.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Government of India as also counsel for the State. This Court would find that the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme is not dehors such earlier orders of rejection. Earlier also the claim was rejected on 4.8.1986, again on 5.5.1993 and also on 13.11.1998. Such fact mentioned in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder affidavit. That would mean that the petitioner’s case received ample consideration and probably in its all possible ramification. As a matter of fact the order dated 10th of August, 2001 also sets out the reasons which on examination are not found to be either vitiated or based on error of record. Such reasons are: “1- vkids }kjk ea=ky; esa lh/ks Hksts x, vkosnu i= esa Hkwfexr ;kruk dh vof/k dk o.kZu ugha gS tcfd fcgkj ljdkj us 2 vxLr 42 ls twu 43 rd dh Hkwfexr ;kruk dh vof/k 2 n’kkZ;h gSA 2- vkidk }kjk izLrqr 'kiFk i= esa fy[kk gS fd jsy] rkj rksMus ds vfHk;ksx esa muds fo:ð e/kqcuh Fkkuk esa eqdnek ntZ gqvk Fkk vkSj mDr eqdnek esa ,l Mh vks e/kqcuh }kjk muds fo:) okjaV tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk ftlesa vxlr 42 ls twu 43 rd Hkkxdj usiky pys x, vkSj ogka fNidj vkUnksyu dk dk;Z djrs jgsA ek= fxjQ~rkjh okjaV gksus dk dkj.k Qjkjh gksus ij isa’ku ;kstuk ds vurxZr isa’ku ugha nh tk ldrhA isa’ku Ldhe ds vUrxZr dsoy Qjkj gksus ls vki “HkxksM+k vijk/kh” fl) ugha gksrsA 3- vkius 1950 esa tkjh fd;k x;k “jktuSfrd ihM+k izek.k i= izlrqr fd;k gS tksfd isa’ku Ldhe ds vUrxZr ekU; ugha gSa A D;ksfd og lR;kfir ugha gS] uk gh fcgkj ljdkj }kjk izLrqr gSA 4- vkids }kjk izLrqr Jh 'khry izlkn flag dk O;fDrxr izek.k i= ekU; ugha gS D;ksafd og vf/kd`r izek.k i= nkrk ugha gSA Jh jktsUnz flag }kjk fn;k x;k O;fDrxr izek.k i= ekU; ugha gS D;ksafd mudh tsy ;kruk dh vof/k 2 o"kZ ls de gSA Jh HkkxhjFk >k }kjk fn;k x;k O;fDrxr izek.k i= ekU; ugha gS D;ksafd vkidh Hkwfexfr ds nkSjku og Lo;a tsy esa FksA tsy esa jgus dh vof/k ds nkSjku vkidh Qjkjh dk viuh O;fDrxr tkudkjh ds vk/kkj ij mUgsa irk gksuk laHko ugha gSA 5- Hkwfexr ds fy, isa’ku rHkh ns; gksrh gS t cog O;fDr ¿1À ,d ?kksf"kr vijk/kh Fkk ;k ¿2À ftldh fxjQ~rkjh@e`R;q ij iqjLdkj dh ?kks"k.kk dh xbZ Fkh ¿3À ftldh utjcanh ds vkns’k tkjh dj fn, x, Fks ysfdu lqiqnZ ugha fd, x, FksA bl ckjs esa vkius 3 dksbZ nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd,A” As a matter of fact when the attention of the learned counsel was invited to reason no.1 and the corresponding document being Annexure 2, he would fairly agree that no detail whatsoever was given with regard to the plea of petitioner being underground freedom fighter. He, however, submits that later on this was sought to be rectified by the State Government. Unfortunately such cannot be a case of a person claiming pension under the Scheme because it is his declaration which has to be tested by either Government of Bihar while making recommendation or the Government of India while taking a final decision. As a matter of fact the reasons, which have been given for rejecting the case of the petitioner, do not suffer from any infirmity and in fact there is no error in the decision making process. That being so, this application is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/ 4