IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4867 of 2001 YADU NANDAN YADAV Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 3 23.01.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Union of India and the State of Bihar. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents for grant of Swatantra Sainik Samman pension to him with effect from 1.08.1980. Counsel for the petitioner has mainly raised two issues. It has been firstly contended while the case of the petitioner has remained pending and undecided till date, others of the same category and in fact arising out of the same prosecution have been already allowed the benefit of such pension. He has also tried to satisfy this Court that the petitioner fulfils all the requisite conditions for grant of pension as prescribed by the Government of India and therefore the inaction of the Respondents by leaving his case in lurch would by itself amount to discrimination and thus violative of Article, 14 of the constitution of India. Counsel for the Union of India, in the light of the counter affidavit has submitted that the case of the petitioner was considered on two occasions and on both of occasions the same was rejected as it was found that the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite conditions. This Court on perusal of the materials on record including the counter affidavit has also the averments made in the writ application and after hearing of the parties, is satisfied that this writ - 2 - application is fit to be dismissed. The petitioner in the first place had suppressed this fact that his case for grant of pension in fact was considered and rejected by a reasoned order way back in the year 1988 and yet he chose to file this writ application in the year, 2001. As a matter of fact, the story with regard to rejection of his case was not only suppressed wile filing this writ petition but in fact even today at the stage of making submission before this Court in this case, by raising a frontal attack to the submissions of the counsel for the Respondents by taking a bold stand that the case of the petitioner had never been rejected much less in the year 1988. however, when his attention was drawn to the affidavit of the petitioner dated 21.7.1989 wherein in paragraph No. 2, he had himself made a statement to the following effect- “;g fd eSa 1&8&80 dh isa”ku ;kstuk ds rgr vkosnu fd;k Fkk A esjk ekeyk Hkkjr ljdkj dks Hkh Hkstk x;k Fkk] A Hkkjr ljdkj dh irz la0 113723@87 fnukad 28 twu 1988 ds n~okjk lwfpr fd;k x;k gS fd esjk ekeyk isa”ku ;kstuk ds vUrxZr ugha vkrk gS A” The counsel for the petitioner had to accept that the earlier application of the petitioner was rejected in the year 1988. Counsel however had submitted that the petitioner had sought review of the said decision of the year 1988 which had not been decided as yet by the authorities of the Government of India. The moment the petitioner admits that he had the cause of action in the year 1988 and yet he had chosen to file the writ application in the year 2001, the delay sought to be explained by the Government of India will be of no avail and - 3 - this writ application is fit to be dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay. This Court however, would also find that the petitioner in fact is taking a vacilliating stand as with regard to his entitlement. Earlier in the year 1980. He took a plea of being accused in a Case No. 597/33 and when his application on the basis of a verification from connected records was rejected by an order dated 28.6.1988 he then came to be with a plea that he was an accused in another case No. 636 of 1942. The Government of India in fact had got the credibility of the said stand of the petitioner also verified and from the letter of the Collector of Madhepura District, Annexure-R-III, it became apparent that the said records of G.R. Case No. 636/72 of 1942 was found to be not only mutilated but forged and fabricated. The Collector, therefore, had submitted his recommendation that it was not safe and prudent to act upon the record of such criminal case and grant pension to the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court such consideration by the Central Government in the second round also cannot be said to be vitiated because the ultimate satisfaction and the decision with regard to fulfillment of the criteria of grant of pension lies with by the Central Government itself. If the record of the crimination prosecutions, the very basis for conferring the status and benefit of freedom fighter pension is itself in doubt, it cannot be said that the decision making process of the Government of India in denying the payment of pension to the petitioner is vitiated. The last submission of the counsel for the petitioner that a - 4 - similarly situated persons being accused in the same G.R. No. 636/72 of 1942 namely Balkrishna Yadav had been granted freedom fighter pension and as such rejecting the case of the petitioner would amount to hostile discrimination is only to be noted for its being rejected. The respondents in their counter affidavit has closed the order which would go to show that even the pension granted to Balkrishna Yadav has been suspended and he has been asked to show cause as to why the same should not be cancelled. That being so, even the last supplemental ground of discrimination also is no longer available to the petitioner. In the background of what has been stated above, it becomes clear that there is no merit in the case of the petitioner and accordingly, the same must be dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)