IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16361 of 2001 SHRI MOHAN THAKUR Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 4 22.1.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. In the opinion of this Court, the following three reasons in the impugned order dated 24.4.2001 (Annexure-18) by themselves are sufficient to disentitle the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension under the Freedom Fighter Scheme. The Government of India in fact while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for such pension has held that:-“ 1- vkids }kjk viuh Hkwfexr ;kruk ds nkos ds leFkZu esa izLrqr th-vkj- la[;k 15@42 ds vuqiyfC/k izek.k i= esa ;g dsl fdl frfFk dks LFkkfir gqvk ugha fn;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr ;g dsl lezkV cuke Hkksyk cjbZ o vU; ds uke ntZ FkkA bl nLrkost ls vkidk ekeyk esa lfEefyr gksuk LFkkfir ugha gksrkA ekuuh; iVuk gkbZ dksVZ us Mk- nsosUnz xqIrk cuke Hkkjr ljdkj ds ekeys esa ;g QSlyk fn;k gS fd ;g vkosnd ftudk uke nLrkost esa vorfjr ugha gksrk mudh cjkcjh ugha dj ldrs ftudk uke nLrkost esa vafdr gSA 2- Jh n;kuUn >k vkSj Jh y{e.k lsu }kjk vkids leFkZu esa fuxZr O;fDrxr tkudkjh izek.k i= Lohdk;Z ugha gS D;ksafd nksuks us 2 vkidh Hkwfexr ;kruk ds vyx dkj.k crk;s gSA Jh >k us vius izek.k i= esa dgk gS fd vki ,d ?kksf"kr vijk/kh Fks tcfd Jh lsu us vius izek.k i= esa ;g izdV fd;k gS fd vkids fo:) utjcanh ds vkns'k tkjh fd;s x;s Fks ysfdu lqiqnZ ugha fd;s x;s Fks tksfd vkids ekeys dks lansgkLin izrhr djrs gSA 3- Lora=rk laxkze esa lfdz; :i ls Hkkx ysus QyLo:I dksbZ O;fDr N% ekg ;k mlls vf/kd Hkwfexr jgk gks isa'ku dk ik= c'krZs fd ¼1½ od ,d ?kksf{kr vijk/kh Fkk ¼2½ ftldh fxjQ~rkjh@e`R;w ij iqjLdkj dh ?kks"k.kk dh xbZ Fkh ;k ¼3½ ftldh utjcanh ds vkns'k tkjh dj fn;s x;s Fks ysfdu lqiqnZ ugha fd;s x;s FksA vkius viuh Hkwfexr ;kruk ds leFkZu esa ljdkjh lw=ksa ds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr ,slk dksbZ Hkh lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;kA** This Court would find that the first reason as with regard to disbelieving the involvement of the petitioner in G.R. Case No. 15/42 is based not only on factual analysis but also in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dr. Devendra Gupta Vs. Union of India. Such reason therefore by itself was sufficient to reject the case of the petitioner. The second reason as with regard to the obvious discrepancy and in fact diametrical contradiction in the 3 accompanying certificate of the two persons who had undergone the similar experience as that of the petitioner also by itself was sufficient to reject the claim of the petitioner. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that though there is contradiction in the two certificates but then both of them amount to establish the same fact is only to be noted for its being rejected because whatever has been certified in the first document has actually been materially contradicted in the other certificate. The third and last reason as with regard to the non-fulfilment of the requirement as being underground for claiming payment of pension in the light of the policy of the Government also is based on unassailable finding and if the petitioner did not adduce any evidence for establishing that he was underground for a period six months, he could not have expected grant of pension. This Court would thus find no error in the impugned order. Having perused the averments made in the writ application, all that can be said is that the petitioner might have claimed to have participated in the freedom struggle but then the requirement under the policy of the Government of India supposed to be fulfilled for grant of pension, could not be established by him. 4 If that be so, no useful purpose would now be allowed to allow the petitioner to be substituted who is said to have died during the pendency of this writ application. That being so, this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)