Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SRI GULAB DATT PANDEY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sri Gulab Datt Pandey v. Union of India & ors. - WRIT - A No. 35671 of 2004 [2004] RD-AH 640 (25 August 2004)

 

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. 34

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 34671 OF 2004

Sri Gulab Datt Pandey -------- Petitioner

Versus

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.

25.8.2004

AKSI


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.