Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM BAHADUR VERMA versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. (POLITICAL PENSION) & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Bahadur Verma v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. (Political Pension) & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 52953 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 44 (1 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52953 of 2002

Ram Bahadur Verma Versus State of U.P. and others.

***

Hon. R.K. Agrawal, J.

Hon. (Mrs.) Saroj Bala, J.

The petitioner claims himself to be the freedom fighter. He has applied for monthly pension under the  "Uttar Pradesh Swatantrata Sangram Senaniyon Aur Unke Parivaron Ko Diye Jane Wale Anudan Tatha Swatantrata Sangram Pension Sambandhi Niyam". The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not come under any of the conditions mentioned in clause (a) of Rule 2 of the aforesaid Rules. While holding so the State Government has relied upon the report submitted by the District Magistrate, Allahabad that in the record of the Naini Central Jail, Allahabad relating to the year 1943 the name of the petitioner  does not find mention and, therefore, the claim that he has been imposed  punishment of  15 canes is not  substantiated.

We have heard Sri Vimal Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ganga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel who represents the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and have perused the averments made in the writ petition and the documents filed in support thereof.

From the application filed by the petitioner and the documents as also the affidavit filed in support thereof it does not appear that the petitioner was given punishment of 15 canes as neither the details nor sufficient proof has been given. Further it appears that the work of the freedom fighter is also silent in this aspect. However, the petitioner has rested his claim under Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules which empowers the State Government to grant pension taking into consideration the work done by the freedom fighter even if not covered under the aforesaid Rule 2(k) of the aforesaid Rules. Thus, the averment merits consideration as from the order passed by the State Government dated 21.12.2001 this aspect has not been taken care of.

In this view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner under Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules expeditiously preferably within a period of  two months from the date a certified copy  of this order is filed  before the respondent no. 1.

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

D/-14.12.2005

Mahmood


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.