Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

In a recent decision, the Patna High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the cancellation of a Freedom Fighter’s Samman Pension. The pension had originally been sanctioned in 1987 based on the claim that the petitioner had gone underground from 1942 to 1946 during India’s freedom struggle.

However, in 2001, the authorities stopped the pension following complaints and inquiries that raised doubts about the petitioner’s age during the claimed period of participation. The District Magistrate found discrepancies between various records—some documents indicated that the petitioner would have been a child in 1942, making it implausible for him to have participated in underground activities during the freedom struggle.

Despite a medical board confirming that the petitioner was likely too young in 1942 and government records being unavailable due to destruction over time, the petitioner continued to claim pension based solely on a Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) from another freedom fighter. The High Court held that such a certificate is not sufficient unless the State Government verifies the claim and certifies that documentary records are unavailable.

The original writ petition filed in 2011 had sought to quash the cancellation of the pension and to restore regular payments, including arrears. The petition was dismissed in 2015 by a Single Judge. After the death of the original petitioner, his widow continued the appeal.

The Division Bench reaffirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that the age verification by two separate medical boards clearly indicated the petitioner would have been between 9 and 11 years old in 1942—too young to be considered an underground freedom fighter under the Samman Pension Scheme. The Court also noted the absence of any credible documents or explanation for the petitioner’s alleged underground activities.

Therefore, the Court found the Union of India’s decision to cancel the pension to be justified and legally sound.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the importance of credible evidence when claiming benefits under special government schemes like the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension. It underscores the government’s duty to verify such claims thoroughly and confirms the judiciary’s support in weeding out unjustified claims that may misuse public funds.

For the general public, this decision clarifies that mere certificates from individuals are insufficient unless supported by official verification. It acts as a deterrent against fraudulent claims and upholds the integrity of the scheme meant for genuine freedom fighters.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

• Issue: Whether the cancellation of the Samman Pension by the Union of India was lawful.
  • Decision: Yes, it was lawful and justified due to unverified and contradictory evidence regarding the petitioner’s age and participation.
• Issue: Whether a Personal Knowledge Certificate alone can justify pension benefits.
  • Decision: No, it cannot unless the State Government verifies its authenticity and confirms unavailability of official records.
• Issue: Whether the petitioner had furnished adequate proof of having gone underground during the freedom movement.
  • Decision: No, the petitioner failed to produce such proof.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Gurdial Singh vs Union Of India [(2001) 8 SCC 8]

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• The court distinguished the case of Gurdial Singh by highlighting the presence of substantial evidence in that case, unlike the present matter.

Case Title
Fulwati Devi v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number
L.P.A. No. 2265 of 2015 in CWJC No. 21526 of 2011

Citation(s)– 2025 (1) PLJR 89

Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble the Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh (for the Appellant)
• Mr. G.P. Ojha, G.P.22; Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, G.P.24 (for the State of Bihar)
• Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG; Mr. Ravindra Kumar, CGC; Mr. Amarendra Nath Verma, Sr. Panel Counsel; Mr. Rakesh Kumar No.1, CGC (for the Union of India)

Link to Judgment
MyMyMjY1IzIwMTUjMSNO-SS95–ak1–N6cItA=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.