IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10750 of 2004 LAXMI DEVI Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For Petitioner : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha Mr. Krishna Kumar For State : Mr. SC 1 For Union of India : Mr. Prashant Kashyap 3 27.1.2009 Heard the parties. In this writ application, the petitioner has assailed the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner, being the widow of late Indradeo Choudhary who had died on 23.9.1979, had filed an application for grant of such pension on 31.10.1997. The application will go to show that though she was already receiving the pension of Rs. 750/- per month under the Legislature Pension Scheme, she had also staked her claim for grant of pension under Swatantrata Senani Samman Pension Yojna and in the column no.13, she had herself stated that she did not file any application prior to 31.10.1997 and in fact, had been filing such application because of the new scheme of Samman Pension introduced by the Government of India in the year 1980. The matter thereafter was processed by the State Government and the State Government found that there was no valid reason for filing an application after 18 years and the papers referred to claiming her husband to be freedom fighter could not be verified for want of the original. The matter was further examined by the 2 Collector of the district who did not find any cogent material for verifying certificates showing the husband of the petitioner to be a freedom fighter. All these matters thereafter, went to the State Government and the State Government in its detailed consideration dated 6.7.2004, while placing the whole matter before the Government of India, had refused to recommend the case of the petitioner on the ground that the same was time barred as also there were recommendation of the authorities for not granting pension in favour of the petitioner. Such report of the State Government on being examined by the Government of India led to passing of the impugned order dated 3rd August, 2004 (Annexure-2) and paragraph nos. 2 to 4 of the said order being relevant is noted hereinbelow:- “2. The SG vide their letter dated 6.7.2004 have stated that the claim of Smt. Laxmi Devi was examined on the basis of documents submitted by her and it is found that the widow had applied for pension after 18 years of the death of her husband, without any satisfactory reply with regard to such delay and also had not submitted any acceptable documents in support of her claimed suffering. The SG have also informed the claim was investigated through DM, Patna who is of the view that it is not a fit case for sanction of pension. As such the SG have not recommended your claim for sanction of pension. 3. In view of negative recommendation of the SG your claim for S.S.S. Pension is not found acceptable for sanction of Pension as per provisions of the Scheme. 3 4. Your attention is also drawn to Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Patna Judgement dated 20- 7-2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 8629/2001-Baldeo Prasad Azad Vs UOI & Others wherein the Hon’ble Court has observed- “if there is no report regarding entitlement to pension in favour of the applicant and in the present case the petitioner, the Central Govt. cannot even scrutinize the claim.” Counsel for the petitioner initially submitted that the petitioner had filed her claim of pension under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme, 1972 which did not provide any limitation nor did put restriction on the widow of the freedom fighter to claim such pension. He ultimately however, on being shown the own admission of the petitioner in the application form which was submitted only under Swatantrata Samman Pension Scheme of 1980, did not pursue this aspect. He next contended that the report of the Collector was absolutely absurd inasmuch as the fact that the husband of the petitioner was a freedom fighter was an accomplished fact. He therefore, had sought to assail the enquiry report of the Collector of Patna on facts. A question would thus arise as to whether there was a period of limitation prescribed under the Swatantrata Samman Pension Scheme of the year 1980? The above scheme of 1980 had definitely put a cut off date for filing of application which was initially upto 31st July, 1981 and was subsequently extended up to 31st March, 4 1982. The petitioner thus cannot be heard to show that she had at that point of time no cause of action because her husband had admittedly died in the year 1979. That being so, there does not seem to be any valid explanation for filing such a belated application after 18 years of the death of the husband. Moreover, in the Samman Pension Scheme, all that is envisaged, is once a pension has been sanctioned in the name of the freedom fighter, the heirs including the wife will be having a right to claim the same. There is no scheme that if the original freedom fighter had not filed the claim for pension under the Samman Pension Scheme of the year 1980, even the wife could have for the first time lodged a claim after the last date for filing the application grant of pension. In any event 31.3.1982 being the last date of filing of such application the petitioner’s application filed on 31.10.1997 was not maintainable in the light of the restrictions placed in the 1980 Scheme itself. An issue in fact will arise as to how the Central Government will verify the facts mentioned or claimed by freedom fighter of his heirs and dependent. As per the scheme, it is always to be done through the enquiry and recommendation of the State Government and that is how, as the nodal agency it is the State Government which has to consider the applicability of the scheme and also after making detailed enquiry and investigation submit its recommendation. If the State Government would itself refuse to make a recommendation, there will be hardly any scope for the Central Government but to reject the case because the Central Government on its own has no 5 independent agency to decide such matter. In the present case, as indicated above, from all the enquiries made, the authorities of the State Government were satisfied that there was merit in the claim of the petitioner. In fact, it was very difficult for any one of them to unfold the story of the year 1942 after 55 years when none of the documents relied by the petitioner could have become available for cross verification while fixing the last date for filing application in 1980 scheme by the Government of India assumes significance and thus cannot be waived on mere ipsidixit of the petitioner. That being so since the two reasons assigned in the impugned order as noted above do not suffer from any error and this Court would also not find any flaw in the decision making process, there would be hardly any scope for interference in the same by this Court. Accordingly, this application, being wholly misconceived, is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)