0Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18109 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sushila Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard Shri Devendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 30.3.2019 whereby the claim of the petitioner for pension under the Loktantra Rakshak Senani Pension (first amendment) Rules, 2013, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, has been rejected. The contention of the petitioner is that her husband late Shyam Narayan Maurya was sent to jail in pursuance of the FIR dated 20.11.1975 lodged by the police in P.S. Ghosi District Mau in Case Crime no. 264 of 1975 under section 36/43 DIR Act as well as section 188 I.P.C.A perusal of the Rules, 2013 shows that such pension is only to be granted to those persons who were sent to jail in MISA/Defence of India Rules and against whom criminal cases were also lodged.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's husband was lodged in jail in pursuance of the FIR dated 20.11.1975 lodged by the police in P.S. Ghosi District Mau in Case Crime no. 264 of 1975 under section 36/43 DIR Act as well as section 188 I.P.C. for disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant. Copy of the F.I.R. has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The report dated 1.1.2019 submitted by Senior Superintendent, District Jail, Azamgarh and a further report dated 23.7.2013 also show that out of 8 persons including the husband of the petitioner were not lodged in jail during that period.
From the documents on record we find that one Daya Shanker alone was lodged in jail and other persons from sl. no. 2 to 8 were not lodged in jail. The name of the petitioner's husband is at sl. no. 6 of the F.I.R. Therefore, we find that even though the name of the petitioner's husband may have been mentioned in the F.I.R. but he was never lodged in jail during the emergency period. The petitioner has also not filed any document to show that her husband was lodged in jail at the relevant point of time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Loktantra Rakshak Senani pension is being paid to the other persons whose names are mentioned in the F.I.R. except the petitioner. From the impugned order we find that the pension being paid to the said persons was wrongly drawn by them and therefore orders have been issued for taking action against them and an enquiry/action has been ordered.
For reasons aforesaid and the fact that the petitioner has not filed any document on record to show that her husband was actually lodged in jail during emergency, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 o.k.