Letters Patent Appeal No.907 OF 2001 ----- Against judgment and order dated 29.6.2001 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C.No.5490 of 2000. ----- Most.Asarfi Devi & Ors. --------------- Appellants Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS --------------- Respondents ----- For the Appellants : Mr.Sunil Kumar Singh,Adv. For Union of India : Mr.Sarvadeo singh, S.C.C.G. For State of Bihar : Mr.Anjani Kumar Saran,Adv. ----- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH Barin Ghosh & Jayanandan Singh,JJ: The predecessor of the appellants had applied for grant of Freedom Fighter Samman Pension. The application was supported by a certificate issued by a co-prisoner. The certificate of the co-prisoner was not accepted and accordingly the application for grant of pension was rejected. The predecessor of the appellants approached this Court challenging the order rejecting his application for grant of pension, and succeeded, on the ground that the certificate of the self same co-prisoner has been accepted in two other cases, but without any justification certificate by the self same co-prisoner has not been accepted in the case of the predecessor of the appellants. The matter was thereupon remitted back to the Central Government for fresh consideration. 2. In order to make fresh consideration, the Central Government required assistance of the District Magistrate, Patna and for that matter - 2 - requested, if possible, production of appropriate jail records. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Barh, on behalf of the District Magistrate, Patna, obtained jail records and then forwarded the same to the Union of India through the District Magistrate, Patna. No comments thereupon had been given either by the S.D.O., Barh or by the District Magistrate, Patna. Such jail records reveal that the predecessor of the appellants was chargesheeted under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, but was allegedly convicted under section 38 D.I.R. This has created a doubt in the minds of the Central Government as to whether the appellant was in fact a freedom fighter or an ordinary prisoner. On that ground the application having been rejected, there was no scope of interference in the writ petition nor there is any scope of interference in the present appeal. 3. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (Barin Ghosh,J.) (Jayanandan Singh,J.) Patna High Court 16th July, 2008 N.A.F.R./Pradeep