Shila Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8634 of 2020 ====================================================== Shila Devi Wife of Late Chhatri Paswan @ Chatradhari Dushadh Resident of Village-Dhamdaha Post and P.S. Dhamdaha District Purnea. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar thorugh the Principal Secretary Department of Homes, Bihar Patna.

2.

The Department of Freedom-Fighters and rehabilitation Division Ministry of Homes, Bihar Patna.

3.

The District Magistrate, Purnea.

4.

The Treasury Officer, Purnea Division Purnea. 5.

The Branch Manager State Bank of Dhamdaha, Branch, District Purnia. 6.

The Circle Officer, Purnea.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anupa Nand Jha For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Manish Kumar, GP-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-04-2021 The matter has been taken up for hearing on-line because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

The petitioner claims to be the widow of one Chhatri Dushadh, who was a freedom fighter and was getting pension under the freedom fighters pension scheme. It is the petitioner's case that the said Chhatri Dushadh died on 01.01.2006 and she, being his widow, is entitled to grant of pension under the said scheme.

The petitioner has described her age to be 65 years in the cause title of the application as well as in the affidavit portion. From her voter's I.D. card, a copy of which is there on

Patna High Court CWJC No.8634 of 2020(2) dt.06-04-2021 2/2 record, it can be seen that the petitioner has been described as the wife of Chhatri Paswan and not Chhatri Dushadh, who was freedom fighter pension holder. The petitioner's age was 25 years as on 01.01.2003. In the light of the entry in the voter's I.D. card, as on date, the petitioner's age would be 43 years. The petitioner has apparently misrepresented before this Court by giving wrong description of her age, which is evident. Further, the petitioner is claiming her entitlement to the pension 15 years after the said freedom fighters pension holder died in 2006.

This application, in the Court's opinion, is frivolous and is accordingly dismissed.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Pawan/- U