IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10554 of 2004 MANNI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE RAMAKANT JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KABILPUR, P.S.-BAHADURPUR, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. ……………….………………………….. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SECRETARY, HOME (SPECIAL), DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. JOINT SECRETARY, HOME (SPECIAL) DEPARTMENT. 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DARBHANGA. 5. UNDER SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, FREEDOM FIGHTER DIVISION, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. …………………………………………. RESPONDENTS ----------- 4 23.1.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha 2, counsel for the petitioner as also counsel for the Union of India and for the State of Bihar. When a large number of cases for grant of fictitious pensions under the freedom fighter scheme came to the notice of this Court, it was this Court which had initially monitored the grant of these cases of pension for sometime and on the basis of various orders of this Court, the State Government and the Central Government had reviewed a number of such cases and a sizable number of them were also cancelled. One such case is also of the husband of the petitioner. In the case of the petitioner, whose husband was earlier granted pension under Freedom Fighter Scheme and on the basis of which the petitioner after the death of her husband had also continued to draw it till its 2 suspension, it was ultimately discovered that there was an interpolation in the name of the father of the husband of the petitioner, in the judgment of G.R. No. 627 of 1942 inasmuch as against the name of Rama Kant Jha son of Newaji Jha, there was some cutting and over scoring the expression Newaji Jha. Again the case of Rama Kant Jha, the husband of the petitioner of being absconder came under scanner because his case was that he had remained absconding from 16.8.1942 to December, 1947 as was in fact was also accepted by the Home Police department of the Government of Bihar while recommending his case for grant of pension and on such basis pension was also granted in the name of the petitioner. Subsequently however it had transpired that date of absconding of Rama Kant Jha at best could be stretched from 16.8.1942 to the month of May, 1943 because the co-prisoner/co-accused Kula Nand Vaidik had certified that the petitioner was absconding from 16.8.1942 to May, 1943 only. Unfortunately, such certificate of Mr. Vaidik, also was found to be a disputed document on account of obvious discrepancy in his signature, which also gave rise to a conclusion that the very basis of grant of pension of the husband of the petitioner was forged and fabricated. The overall conclusion therefore, by the Central Government on the 3 basis of the correspondence made and enquiry conducted by the authority of the Government of Bihar including Collector of Darbhanga district, was that the husband of the petitioner was wrongly granted such pension under freedom fighter scheme. As mentioned above, since the matter was being monitored by this Court and the case of the petitioner also came under scanner and since the husband of the petitioner in the meantime had already been dead, a show-cause notice was given to the petitioner confronting her to the aforementioned materials as specifically quoted in the report of the Collector of the Darbhanga district dated 20.11.2002 (Annexure-19). The aforesaid show-cause notice dated 5th October, 2004 had specifically mentioned the following grounds for taking a tentative view for cancelling the pension granted to the husband of the petitioner. ^^2- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa izkjEHk lh0MCY;w0ts0lh0 la[;k 10638@2001 ds varxZr ^^lqvks eksVks ,D”ku** ;kfpdk ls lacaf/kr jkT; ljdkj ds i=kad 163 fnukad 11-6-2003 esa tkap mijkUr bl ea=ky; ds /;ku esa ;g ckr ykbZ xbZ gS fd ftyk inkf/kdkjh] njHkaxk ls izkIr tkap izfrosnu ,oa jkT; ljdkj ds dk;kZy; esa miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g ik;k x;k gS fd isa”ku/kkjh }kjk vius nkos ds leFkZu esa lefiZr dksVZ vfHkys[k th- vkj-la[;k&627@42 dks dksVZ vfHkys[k ugha ekuk tk ldrk D;ksafd ;g dksVZ dh lR;kfir izfrfyfi ugha gSA blds vykok dksVZ vfHkys[k th-vkj- la[;k 627@42 ds dkye&6 ¼N%½ esa 4 jekdkUr >k is0 usokth >k ¼ftls dkVdj fy[kk x;k gS½ lafnX/k izrhr gksrk gSA isa'ku/kkjh }kjk lafnX/k dkxtkr izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA lkFk gh izeq[k Lora=rk lSukuh Jh dqykuUn oSfnd }kjk fn;s x;s izek.k&i= esa 31-5-86 dk gLrk{kj ,oa 15-9-86 ds gLrk{kj esa fHkUurk gSA blds vfrfjDr ftyk inkf/kdkjh] njHkaxk us viuh tkWp fjiksZV esa isa”u/kkjh }kjk nkf[ky dkxtkrksa esa fojks/kkHkkl ,oa lafnX/krk n'kkZ;h gSA vr% jkT; ljdkj us Lohd`r dh xbZ Lora=rk lSukuh lEeku isa'ku dks jnn djus dh vuq'kalk dh gSA* * In fact, as a part of the precautionary measure, when the aforesaid show-cause notice was issued by the Central Government it had also withheld the payment of further pension to the petitioner, the widow of late Rama Kant Jha, and when the petitioner had filed her exhaustive representation on 24.10.2004 (Annexure-12), the impugned order came to be passed on 22nd September, 2005 as contained in Anenxure-17 to the writ application. Counsel for the petitioner was quite emphatic in his submission that whatever recommendations had been sent State Government of Bihar to the Government of India for cancelling the pension order of her husband, was in fact well within the knowledge of the authorities of State Government and therefore, there was no such fresh material which required re-consideration in the decision of granting pension in the name of husband of the petitioner. Counsel however, when being asked to 5 show any record as to the knowledge of the authority of the Government of India with regard to the cutting in the judicial record of GR case against the name of the father of the husband of the petitioner or with regard to the discrepancy in the certificate of the co-prisoner or with regard to the lack of evidence of the husband of the petitioner for being underground in the period of Freedom Movement was not able to pin point any particular document. In that view of the matter, it would be difficult for this Court to hold that the reasons which have weighed upon the authorities of the Government of India to cancel the order granting pension to late Rama Kant Jha, the husband of the petitioner and on the basis of which the petitioner also in capacity of the wife of late Rama Kant Jha continued to draw it till 2004, suffers from any error. At least, there is no visible error in the decision making process while passing the impugned order. One thing however, is clear that it was late Rama Kant Jha who had made an application and had filed the document and the Government had also accepted them to be correct and thereafter, on the basis of recommendation made by the Government of Bihar, the Government of India had sanctioned the pension. Such 6 pension was also continued to be paid for a number of years till the aforesaid discovery was made and that too at the instance of this Court. In that view of the matter, this Court would find that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the present petitioner, the wife of Rama Kant Jha and thus whatever be the fault on the part of late Rama Kant Jha, her widow the petitioner cannot be asked to return back the amount which was paid to her by way of pension after the death of her husband. Accordingly, the part of the impugned order seeking to make recovery for the amount of pension already paid to her, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is hereby quashed but the remaining portion of the impugned order cancelling the grant of further pension to the petitioner being a valid and correct decision can not be and is not interfered by this Court. With the aforementioned modification in the impugned order, this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)