IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8758 of 2004 RAM NARESH PRASAD @ RAM NARESH Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Shailandra Kumar Singh For State :- Mr. SC1 For Union of India :- Mr. Prashant Kashyap (Central Govt. Counsel) 3 30.1.2009 Heard the parties. In the case of the petitioner, an order came to be passed refusing to grant pension under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme on the following two grounds:- ^^1- vkids }kjk nkos ds leFkZu esa izLrqr th-vkj- 728@93 ds v/;;u ls irk pyrk gS fd mDr ekeys esa vkids f[kykQ ;Fks’V lcwr ugha ik, x, o mDr ekeyk okfil ys fy;k x;k FkkA ,sls ekeys ;kstuk ds fu;eksa ds varxZr isa”ku izkfIr ds fy, Lohdk;Z ugha gSA bl lanHkZ esa ekuuh; dydRrk U;k;ky; }kjk “kfDr ckyk lkekUr o vU; ds ekeys esa ikfjr QSlyk lqlaxr gSA 2- Jh jke uxhuk frokjh dk izek.ki= ekU; ugha gS D;ksafd vkidh Hkwfexr ;kruk ds nkos ds le; og Lo;a tsy esa gSA vr% mUgsa vkidh Hkwfexr ;kruk dh vof/k o mlds dkj.kksa dk viuh O;fDrxr tkudkjh ds vk/kkj ij irk gksuk laHko ugha gSA bl lanHkZ esa vkidk /;ku iVuk mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Jh gfjuUnu flag cuke Hkkjr ljdkj eas ikfjr QSlys dh rjQ fnyk;k tkrk gSA** Counsel for the petitioner submits that both the grounds are unsustainable and in fact the findings recorded by the authority with regard to the records of G.R. No. 728/93 would go to show that the petitioner was not only an accused but, was also declared as 2 absconder. Counsel had very fairly produced the original copy of Annexure-2 which would go to show that as a matter of fact, one Ramnaresh Barhi was shown to be in the column of accused and the name of the absconder was Ramnaresh. That being so, the reference to the said Ramnaresh would be for non-else but for one Ramnaresh Barhi who was shown in the column of accused. The difficulty for the petitioner does not end there. In fact, there is trace of another Ramnaresh Ahir as an accused of the case. The petitioner does not claim to be either Ramnaresh Ahir or Ramnaresh Barhi and therefore, to say that there was a third Ramnaresh also as an accused, shown as an absconder which should be treated as a petitioner would be a very very for fetched conclusion. As a matter of fact, it would be very difficult for this Court or even the authority to come to a positive conclusion on the basis of record of G.R. Case No. 728/93 to hold that it was the petitioner who was shown to be in the column of the absconder. Apart from that, the second reason given by the authority is equally convincing and applicable inasmuch as if Ram Nagina Tiwari was himself in custody in that period, how could he have certified about the petitioner absconding. The Personal Knowledge Certificate of a co- accused/accomplice can only be taken into account if he 3 was in personal knowledge of all these things. Once it is found that Ram Nagina Tiwari in the concerned period was himself in custody, it would be difficult for the authority to conclude that his certificate declaring the petitioner to be absconder had any semblance of truth. That being so, since both the reasons do not suffer from any error and there is also no flaw in the decision making process, this Court would find that the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme was not in accordance with the policy laid down by the Government of India and had therefore been rightly rejected by the authorities. This being the position, this Court would not find any merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)