The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the stopping of the petitioner's pension under the Uttar Pradesh Fighters of Democracy Honour Rules, 2012, as he was imprisoned for offences under the Essential Commodities Act.
The writ petition was dismissed; the order stopping the petitioner's pension was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7946 of 2016
Petitioner :- Ganga Saran Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Digvijay Singh,Ashish Goyal,K.D.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondents.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the District Magistrate dated 4th March, 2015 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition).
The petitioner claims that being Fighter for Democracy during emergency he was jailed under MISA and DIR and he remained incarcerated till 25.2.1977. When the petitioner was let out on bail, he applied for pension under the Uttar Pradesh Fighters of Democracy Honour Rules, 2012 (in short the Rules) and he was allowed pension of Rs. 3000/-per month along with other facilities as provided under the said Rules. The said pension was being paid to the petitioner till 28.8.2014. Thereafter it was stopped by the District Magistrate on the basis that the petitioner's incarceration was not merely as a fighter for democracy but it was also for committing an offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
The petitioner does not dispute that he was a fair price shop licensee. Since the petitioner was essentially imprisoned for an offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act the petitioner would not be entitled to receive such honour money.
It is submitted that the petitioner was finally acquitted from the charges under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act by the Court on 24.11.1982.
In view of Section 3(1) of the aforesaid Rules, which prescribes that incarceration for other reasons than political would dis-entitle to receive such money.
Since the petitioner was imprisoned for an offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and the allegation made in the FIR having not produced before the Court, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the District Magistrate dated 4.3.2015.
The writ petition lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.11.2019 SKM
(Prakash Padia,J.) (Abhinava Upadhya,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pension as a fighter for democracy given his incarceration for offences under the Essential Commodities Act.
Whether the impugned order stopping the petitioner's pension requires judicial interference.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ganga Saran
State of U.P.
Abhinava Upadhya
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
