Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
(Oral)
1. Ramendra Pratap Singh has preferred this petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 15.2.2010 (Annexure-2) passed by respondent No.3 (Principal Secretary Home (General), U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow) and order dated 30.6.2010 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent No.1 (Union of India through Secretary of Home Affairs, New Delhi) Vide the impugned orders, claim of the petitioner for grant of pension under "Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980" (in short, Pension Scheme, 1980) has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not appeared to prosecute the case. A request for adjournment has been floated.
We find that similar request(s) for adjournment were made even on the earlier dates of hearing, viz. 4.9.2018, 14.8.2018, 31.7.2018, 29.5.2017, 6.9.2014, 20.8.2014 and 25.7.2014.
3. We are of the view that the petitioner is evading the process of the Court and therefore, considering the fact that the petition relates to the year 2010 and has become nine years old, we do not find any reason that would persuade us to adjourn the matter.
We also find that the request for adjournment is not in terms of the rules and regulations. Even the counsel for respondents was not informed about the request in advance.
4. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Raj Baksh Singh has drawn attention of the Court towards affidavit sworn on 20.1.2011 by Mr. Om Prakash, Under Secretary, Freedom Fighters Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. In para 4 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 provides that any applicant who claims the benefits of the said Scheme is required to send his application for the said purpose in prescribed format along with documentary evidence in support of his claimed sufferings, duly verified through concerned State Government. The name of the petitioner does not find mention in the computerised rejection/sanctioned cases register maintained for District Deoria. It is, therefore, apparent that petitioner had not applied earlier for samman pension.
It has been pointed out that the claim of the petitioner for relief under the Pension Scheme, 1980 was considered in deference to order dated 10.11.2009 rendered in Writ Petition No.10474(M/B) of 2009. The representation was examined in context of the documentary evidence from official record. A detailed report was received from the Government of U.P. vide letters dated 15.2.2010 and 31.5.2010 placed before the Court as Annexures R-1 and R-2 with the affidavit. The claim of the petitioner for grant of pension was not recommended by the State Government due to shortcomings/ discrepancies. The State Government had been informed accordingly.
It has been highlighted in the affidavit that the petitioner has been shown as born in 1942 and therefore, there was no question of his participation in the freedom movement.
5. We have gone through the documents accompanying the affidavit filed on behalf of respondents. We find that relevant reasons in context of the issue have been given by respondents. The claim of the petitioner for ?samman pension? has been considered in relevant aspects of the matter.
6. We have referred to the contents of impugned order, Annexure-1. The following main reasons have been considered for denying relief to the petitioner :
"i) The State Government has not recommended the case.
ii) State Government of Uttar Pradesh has reported that as per official records Shri Ramender Pratap Singhw was born in the year 1942. He has claimed that he suffered imprisonment from 05.10.1942 to 04.04.1943, as such he was minor at the time of alleged jail suffering. The tender age doubles about his alleged partiipation in the freedom movement.
iii) Shri Ramender Pratap Singh has suppressed the correct date of birth in his application submitted to State Government of Uttar Pradesh.
iv) The Co-prisoners Certificates issued by Shri Mahattam, Shri Jangbahadur Mishra and Shri Swaminath Prajapati in favour of Shri Ramender Pratap Singh are also not acceptable as all the certifiers have denied issuing such certificates in favour of Shri Ramender Pratap Singh."
7. In such circumstances, we find no reason to substitute our own decision, for the decision of the respondents while entertaining this petition. The facts and circumstances do not call for judicial review of the administrative action taken by respondents in denying samman pension to the petitioner under the Pension Scheme, 1980.
8. For the reasons given above, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 kkb/