IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8021 of 2001 SMT. RAJ KUMARI DEVI Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 4 22.1.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be the wife of a freedom fighter. An application dated 5.5.1981 filed by her husband, Late Mandish Singh for grant of pension was rejected by the Government of India by an order dated 16.2.1993. In fact after the death of the husband of the petitioner on 23.7.1985, the petitioner, in between the years 1985 to 1993 had infact made a herculean effort to satisfy the authorities that her husband (since dead) was actually a freedom fighter and was eligible for grant of pension in the light of requirements laid down in the policy of the Government of India. The reservation of the Government of India however in the order dated 16.2.1993 rejecting prayer for grant of pension was with regard to both the age of the husband of the petitioner as also absence of any clinching evidence on the issue of the jail custody of her husband for a minimum period of six months. This order dated 16.2.1993 ordinarily ought to have closed the chapter but then the petitioner continued with her endless zeal and effort for getting payment of the pension and when the said issue was repeated raised by 2 the petitioner, the Government of India again by a reasoned order dated 11th April, 2001 has rejected such prayer of the petitioner by enumerating the following six grounds:- 1- vkids ifr us vius vkosnu i= esa viuh tsy ;kruk dk iw.kZ o.kZu ugha fd;k gSA 2- vkids ifr us fnukad 1981 ds vkosnu i= esa viuh mez 50 c"kZ fy[kh gSA blds vuqlkj vkids ifr dh lu 1942 esa mez dsoy 11 c"kZ gh Fkh blfy, vkids ifr dk bruh de mez esa Lora=rk vkanksyu esa Hkkx ysus o tsy tkuk lansgtud gSA blds vfrfjDr mudh vYik;q ds dkj.k mudk O;Ldksa ds lkFk tsy esa jguk laHko izrhr ugha gksrk vr% ekeys esa izLrqr lgcanh izek.k i= vfo'ouh; gSA 3- th-vkj- 16 ds vuqlkj vkids ifr dh tsy ;kruk dsoy ,d eghuk vkSj lkr fnu lkfcr gksrh gSA 4- nkos ds leFkZu esa izLrqr jktuhfrd izek.k i= dh izfr ls irk pyrk gS fd vkids Lo- ifr fcgkj bathfu;fjax dkyst ds baVjO;w gds le; fxjQ~rkj fd;s x;s FksaA ijUrq ;g Li"V ugha gksrk fd ek= 11 o’kZ dh vk;q esa og fdl fy;s baVjO;w gds fy;s cqyk;s x;s FksA 5- vkids ifr vkjk tsy ls fnukad 23-1-43 dks fjgk gq, vkSj vxys gh fnu fnukad 24-1-43 dks fxjQ~rkj dj iVuk tsy Hksts x;s] tksfd laHko ugha gSA blds vfrfjDr vkids ifr us vius vkosnu i= esa vkjk ¼”kkgkckn½ tsy esa jgus dk nkok fd;k Fkk ukfd iVuk tsy esaA nkos ds leFkZu esa izLrqr lHkh izek.k i= vkids ifr dh e`R;q ds ckn] izkIr fd;s x;s gSa] tks ekeys dks lansgLin cukrs gSA 6- nkos ds leFkZu esa izLrqr flQZ jkeo`{k flag dk 3 lgcanh izek.k i= ekU; gSA vU; O;fDr ekU; izek.k i= nkrk ugha gSA Lora=rk lSfud lEeku isa”ku ;kstuk ds vuqlkj nks lgcanh izek.k izLrqr djus gksrs gSA** All the aforesaid six grounds by themselves cannot be said to be irrelevant or contrary to the requirements laid down in the scheme of the Government of India which is Annexure-4 to the writ application. In such a situation, when there is not even a pleading in the writ application that any of the six grounds suffer from any error of record, their correctness on fact has to be accepted by this court. This court, thus on perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents must hold that there were sufficient materials for the Government of India to reach to a correct conclusion that the husband of the petitioner was not eligible to be granted pension under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme. This Court, therefore exercising a limited power of judicial review by going into only the decision making process and not the merits of the decision, would not find any error in the impugned order. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)