IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3627 of 2005 SMT.MUKHAN DEVI Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 2 30.1.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of pension under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme by a communication dated 10th October, 2000 as contained in Annexure-1, does not suffer from any error. By such order, the competent authority of the Government of India had rejected the claim of the petitioner on the three grounds which are as follows:- ^^1- vkids }kjk izLrqr th-vkj- esa of.kZr rF;ksa dk lR;kiu ugha gks ik;kA 2- vkius tsy ;kruk ds nkos ds leFkZu esa tsy izek.k i= vFkok mlds vHkko esa mldk vuqiyfC/k izek.k i= izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA 3- ;kstuk ds varxZr tsy vuqiyfC/k izek.k i= ds lkFk nks ekU; izek.knkrkvksa ds lgcUnh izek.k dh vko';drk gksrh gSA vkius dsoy ,d O;fDr&Jh lj;w izlkn }kjk dk izek.k i= fn;k gS tksfd ekU; ugha gS] D;ksafd mudh viuh tsy ;kruk 2 o"kZ ls de gSA** Counsel for the petitioner, however was in fact emphatic that from Annexure-2, it would be apparent that the husband of the petitioner was one of the persons who was also convicted and sentenced in G.R. No. 1169/103/42. In this context, he had referred to 2 Annexure-2 which was the solitary basis for conviction of the husband of the petitioner as also written by her in her application for grant of pension, a copy whereof has also been produced by the counsel of the petitioner before this Court. From perusal of Annexure-2, however it would appear that in that case, the name of accused was Ram Narain Mahto and others and in the final order which has been passed, neither the name of Ram Narain Mahto has been shown to be the prisoner not held to be guilty and sentenced or convicted. In fact, Annexure-2 is only a list of records sent to the District Record Room from the Court, which would be wholly insufficient to establish much less prove fulfillment of the requirement of grant of pension under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme as with regard to the husband of the petitioner late Karamdeo Singh to be an accused in the said criminal case and also to be convicted and sentenced. The very absence of the name of Ram Narain Mahto would go to show that in the records sent to the District Record Room, there was every possibility of making certain entry which may or may not be correct. That being so, if that document ultimately has been found by the authority of Government of India to be incapable of being verified from an independent source, no flaw can be found in such reasonings. 3 The other two grounds also gets support from the application filed by the petitioner inasmuch as when the petitioner had filed only one certificate of co-prisoner in place of two as required by the Government of India and even that co-prisoner had not completed the minimum sentence of two years as required under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme, it cannot be said that the Government of India has not considered the case of the petitioner properly. There being no error in the decision making process, this Court would not be in a position to review the decision of the Government of India on merit and as such, this application, being wholly misconceived, is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)