The main legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on valid documentary evidence, Non-Availability of Records Certificate (NARC), and secondary evidence in supporting claims for pension under the SSS Pension Scheme, 1980. The judgment highlights the importance of compliance with the evidentiary requirements outlined in the scheme.

Suresh Kait, J.

1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 17.08.2009, whereby the respondent No. 2 has come to the conclusion that the petitioner does not meet the eligibility criteria and evidentiary requirements of the Swantantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for short ‘SSS Pension Scheme’). Consequently, rejected the application of the petitioner.

2. Case of the petitioner is that he participated in the Quit India Movement, 1942 on the call of senior leaders like Gandhiji, Rajendra Babu, Shri Krishna Sinha and Anugrah Babu. On his participation in the aforesaid movement, a criminal case bearing G.R. No.701/42, titled as Emperor Vs. Mathura Shah & Ors. got registered and the petitioner was also named as an accused in said case. The petitioner had remained absconded upto 1946 despite NBWs and proceedings U/s 82/83 Cr.P.C.

3. Further case of the petitioner is that despite issuance of NBWs on 29.09.1942 against him from the court of Mr. L. L. Singh, Magistrate Ist Class, Deoghar, he could not be arrested. Thereafter, vide order dated 01.11.1942 proceedings U/s 82/83 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner. Consequently, he was declared P.O. by the said court on 30.04.1943 and since then upto 1946, he remained underground due to apprehension of arrest by the English Government.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the judicial record of case bearing G.R. No. 701/42 was disposed off, therefore, NARC dated 07.08.1985 in a prescribed form was issued by Dy. Collector, District Record Room, Deoghar, wherein stated as under:-

“7.8.1985 GR No. 701/42 Emperor Vs. Mathura Shah and others dated 11.10.1942 in the court of L.L.Singh, Magistrate Deoghar’s record is not available in this record room.”

5. He further submitted that the petitioner had applied for the SSS Pension Scheme with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 alongwith certificates issued by Veteran Freedom Fighters like Bhokal Mahto, Jagannath Jha, Krishna Pad Sen, Nagdi Prasad Roy and others.

6. In November 1999, after due verification received from the Dy. Commissioner, Deoghar, the Standing Committee of the Bihar State passed the resolution by recommending the case of the petitioner. Meanwhile, Jharkhand became the successive State, therefore, the respondent No.3 did not send the recommendation to the respondent No.2. On 15.10.2008, the Jharkhand Government enquired the matter afresh and after satisfaction, verification of record and local enquiries, the case of the petitioner was recommended and sent to the respondent No.2 vide letter No.3607 dated 15.10.2008, wherein it was stated as under:-

“In enquiry report it states that in the court of Sh. L.L.Singh, Magistrate, Deoghar, GR No. 701/42 Emperor Vs. Mathura Shah & Others, the name of Sh. Choudhary is also mentioned same has verified from District Record Room Deoghar letter No. 1 dated 4.1.1999.

And on the local verification it has found that Sundar Choudhary son of Late Satya Narayan Choudhary had participated in the movement 1942, he had absconded but not served the jail and his claim is fit for grant of SSS Pension.”

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Central Government through respondent No.2 rejected the application of the petitioner being beyond the policy and without considering the afore discussed communications.

8. To sum up his arguments, learned counsel submitted that GR No.701/42 has been verified from both the Governments, i.e., Bihar and Jharkhand. Despite, application of the petitioner was rejected. Application of one Satish Chandra Mishra, Deoghar District, was also similarly rejected by the respondent No. 2 and the said order of rejection of respondent No. 2 has been quashed by this Court vide its judgment dated 30.05.2009 passed in W.P.(C) No. 9362/2004 and the same has been reported as 164 (2009) DLT 172.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner is similarly situated with t