Judgment:
Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.
1. The petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 16.6.2000 issued by respondent No. 2 the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, communicated to the petitioner rejecting his claim for S.S.S. Pension (Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension) vide Letter No. 52/CC/281/99-FF.CZ(Lit.I).The petitioner states that he participated in Freedom movement and absconded from August, 1942 to September, 1943. A criminal prosecution being Sessions Trial No. 140/42 King Emperor v. Raghunandan Thakur and Ors. was also initiated against him for having participated in freedom movement. The petitioner, as such, applied for pensionery scheme under SSS with all requisite documents.
2. The learned Counsel states that he participated in freedom movement and he was even prosecuted vide Sessions Trial No. 140 of 1942. The petitioner as such went underground to escape the prosecution and conviction in the aforesaid Sessions Trial. The Government of India started a scheme of swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension for freedom fighters. Participation in freedom movement was an essential condition for qualifying for benefit under the scheme. Such persons may have suffered incarceration or may have gone underground to escape the rigorous imprisonment.
3. As the petitioner fulfilled the requisite conditions, he applied for benefits under SSS Scheme before the District Committee, Muzaffarpur. The Committee after examining the application and documents of the petitioner forwarded the same to the State Committee. The State Advisory Committee after scrutiny of the documents in its meeting held on 18/19.10.1993 recommended the name of the petitioner to the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide letter No. 3732 dated 27.11.1994 for Freedom Fighters pension. As no decision was taken on such recommendation, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C No. 8113 of 1999. On 3.4.2000 this Court directed the respondent Government of India to decide the claim of the petitioner on the materials available before it in accordance with law within four weeks of receipt/production of a copy of this order, furnished by the State Government.
4. Respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 16.6.2000 as contained in Annexure-7 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for SSS Pension mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the State Government had not sent the original NARC (non-availability of records and certificate) along with its verification report in original. Secondly, the State Government did not sent the original personal knowledge certificate issued by Sri Gopal Ji Mishra, another incarcerated accused, along with its verification report.
5. The petitioner states that it would appear from the impugned order itself that the state Government in its letter dated 2.12.1999 had forwarded all documents to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The State Government vide letter dated 19.9.1989 informed the Ministry of Home Affairs stating that due to absence of original Court document, the fact on the copy of NARC could not be verified. The petitioner states that it would appear from Annexure-1 that office of the Sessions Court ,Muzaffarpur had endorsed that original records of the Sessions Trial. No. 140/42 had been destroyed. It would also appear from the letter of the District Administration, Muzaffarpur, contained in Annexures-2 & 2/1 that civil court, Muzaffarpur has endorsed that the said copy of Sessions Trial No. 140/42 had been issued from its office.
6. Learned Counsel submits that the State Government while making recommendation had forwarded the Photostat copy of the relevant extracts of Sessions Trial No. 140 of 1942 of Muzaffarpur Court.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that as original of Narc had not been furnished his claim was rejected.
8. This Court finds that as the original of NARC of Sessions Trial No. 140/42 was destroyed it would be impossible for the State to furnish the same. Further more, the report of the District Magistrate contained in Annexure-2 and the endorsement of the Registry of civil court contained in Annexure-1 as well as forwarding application of the State Government contained in Annexurre-5 establish that the information furnished regarding prosecution of the petitioner was correct. As such, this Court is of the view that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for SSS pension on the ground as stated in the impugned order is erroneous.
9. So far as the second ground on which the claim has been rejected is that the State Government failed to send original Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) issued by one of the convicts, Gopal Ji Mishra. Annexure-3 is a copy of the PKC granted by the aforesaid Gopal Ji Mishra. It would appear from Annexure-5 that the State Government had annexed the aforesaid certificate issued by Gopal Ji mishra. Further more, after due scrutiny the State Government had found that all the documents filed by the petitioner were in order.
10. Thus, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for SSS pension on these two grounds cannot be upheld.
11. In the back drop of the aforesaid discussions this Court sets aside the order of respondent No. 2 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for SSS pension.
12. The respondent Union Government of India is directed to confer benefit of SSS pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 21.11.2000 the date of filing of the writ application.
13. With the aforesaid direction this writ application is allowed.