BRAJESHOWRI PRASAD SINGH v. THE UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

Certificate (PKC) was in English and in fact Mr. Sen has signed only in Hindi. This aspect of the matter has been dealt in the counter affidavit of the Union of India in paragraph Nos. 7 to 12 which reads as follows:- “7. On receipt of a representation from the petitioner through a Member of Parliament as no previous papers in the case were available respondent, 29-2-2000 (ANNEXURE R-I), he was requested to submit copy of his application, if any, submitted earlier along with supporting documents verification-cum-entitlement report of the State Govt.. State Govt. was also requested on 8-5- 2000 (ANNEXURE R-II) to send copies of application of the petitioner, if submitted, along with supporting documents with their specific recommendation. On receipt of his subsequent representation also, the petitioner was informed about the same.

8. Aggrieved with this, the applicant filed a W.P. No. 16459 of 2001 in the Hon’ble High Court of Bihar at Patna. In its Order dated - 3 - 13-3-2002, Hon’ble Court had held that - “The petitioner shall appear before the concerned State Officer within a period of six weeks from today, on his appearance he would be informed by the concerned officer/dealing officer that what records are required for making recommendation by the state Government. After the said documents are submitted by petitioner the concerned state Officer shall pass necessary orders and refer the matter to the Central Government for passing necessary orders. If the petitioner recommendations are received by the Union of India then within a period of four weeks they shall pass necessary orders on the petitioner’s application. The petition is disposed of.”

9. On 3-12-2003, the State Govt.’s negative recommendation along with DM, Banka’s report and PKC of Shri Laxman Sen was received in this Ministry. While the case of the petitioner was under examination, he filed a MJC No. 1655 of 2002 in which the Hon’ble Court has held that:- “This petition is disposed of with the observations that if the petitioner wants to file any further documents he may do so within 15 - 4 - days from today. Within 15 days thereafter the State Govt./authorized Officer shall pass speaking orders.’

10. On receipt of the State Govt. report the case of the petitioner was examined in this Ministry and was rejected on 1-1-2004 on the grounds that District Magistrate, Banka has shown his inability to verify the contents of GR No. 65/43. Apart from this Shri Laxman Sen, the certifier has stated that the applicant has furnished a forged personal knowledge certificate by putting English Signatures on it, whereas he used to sign in Hindi only (annexure 1 of the Writ Petition).

11. With regard to averments made in paragraph 1 of the writ petition, it is submitted that it is the duty of the Govt. to examine the case with reference to the documents produced by the applicant in support of his claim. Pension can be granted the Govt. is satisfied with documents submitted by the applicant with reference to his suffering. In the petitioner’s case, the claimed suffering for six months is not established on the basis of evidence produced in support of his claim, his case was thus rejected - 5 - vide Speaking Order dated 1st Jan., 2004

12. With regard to averments made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioner’s case was examined as per the provisions of Samman Pension Scheme,

1980. DM, Banka has shown his inability to verify the contents of GR No. 65/43. Apart from this, the Personal Knowledge Certificate of Sh. Laxman Sen is not acceptable because of the fact that certifier has himself stated that applicant has furnished a forged personal knowledge certificate by putting English Signature on it, whereas he used to sing in Hindi.” There is no denial to the aforementioned stand taken by the Union of India by any reply affidavit filed by the original writ petitioner or even the substituted petitioner. The records would bear it out that the copy of such counter affidavit was served on the counsel for the petitioner on 24.8.2004. Thus the facts mentioned in the counter affidavit remain uncontroverted which would give a death blow to the entire case and claim of the original writ petitioner being a Freedom Fighter. The direct impact of such pleadings on record is that the Laxman Sen had not only sought to deny his signature on PKC filed by the original petitioner but had also - 6 - denied his any signature even in Hindi by taking a specific stand that he did not even know the original writ petitioner. In such a situation, when the claim of the original writ petitioner of being convicted in a criminal case and undergone jail custody for a minimum period of six months in relation to Freedom Struggle could not be supported from any record and even the alternative documents in favour of PKC was found to forged, it was difficult for the Government of India to hold that the original writ petitioner was eligible to be paid pension under the Freedom Fighter Scheme. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court towards a document dated

11.2.2004 wherein the same Laxman Sen is said to have given his written letter to the Director-cum-Deputy Secretary of the Government of Bihar as with regard to giving certain declaration regarding his signature on the PKC dated 5.5.2000. The said document will itself go to show that it is not only subsequent to the impugned order dated 1.1.2004 but was created as a defence with regard to consideration already made by the Government of India. The correctness of Annexure-10 vis-(cid:224)-vis the stand taken by the respondents being a disputed question of fact, with regard to genuineness or forgery of - 7 - the signature of the Laxman Sen, infact cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That being so, this writ application is wholly misconceived and is hereby dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)