High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sri Gulab Datt Pandey v. Union of India & ors. - WRIT - A No. 35671 of 2004  RD-AH 640 (25 August 2004)
COURT NO. 34
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 34671 OF 2004
Sri Gulab Datt Pandey -------- Petitioner
Union of India & ors. ------- Respondents
Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble D.P. Gupta, J.
(By Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.)
This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 21.6.2004, by which the representation of the petitioner for granting certain benefits being dependent of the freedom fighter, who did not avail any family pension during his life time, has been rejected.
Petitioner claims to be the grand son of one Shri Raja Ram Pandey alias Basudeo Pandey, who had served the jail sentence, i.e., imprisonment for 1,1/2 years in 1941. The said freedom fighter never claimed any family pension during his life time. Petitioner's grand father died on 8.9.1946. Petitioner is of 64 years of age, and thus, borne during the life time of his grand father. Petitioner filed an application for family pension making an application on 17.2.1992 before respondent no. 1 under the provisions of Freedom Fighter Pension Rules 1975 (hereinafter called the Rules), which was rejected. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 1588 of 2000 and the same was disposed of directing the statutory authority to consider the case again. The case has been reconsidered and rejected vide impugned order dated 21.6.2004. Hence this petition.
The petitioner is 64 years of age though handicapped is not able to show how he could be dependent upon his grand father and to claim the pension and which has not been mentioned anywhere in the pleadings as to whether any other person is survived who could also claim the family pension even in Rules 1975. The relevant rules provide that it is open to the State Government to grant the family pension to an eligible member being dependent upon a freedom fighter if the said freedom fighter did not claim pension during his life time. It is difficult to ascertain as to whether petitioner is eligible person as petitioner failed to take proper pleadings as to whether he is the only survivor in that family or how it is he who could claim to be eligible.
It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/ adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. (Vide Bharat Singh & ors. Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181; M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat & ors., AIR 1998 SC 1608; National Building Construction Corporation Vs. S. Raghunathan & ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779; Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani & ors., (1999) 1 SCC 141; Smt Chitra Kumari Vs. Union of India & ors., AIR 2001 SC 1237; and State of U.P. Vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey, AIR 2001 SC 1298).
In M/s. Atul Castings Ltd. Vs. Bawa Gurvachan Singh, AIR 2001 SC 1684, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"The findings in the absence of necessary pleadings and supporting evidence cannot be sustained in law."
Similar view has been reiterated in Vithal N. Shetti & anr. Vs. Prakash N. Rudrakar & ors., (2003) 1 SCC 18.
As petitioner miserably failed to plead the case and adduce any evidence to substantiate his claim we are not in a position to entertain the petition.
Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.