Patna High Court - Orders
Kapildeo Sharma vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 18 November, 2014
Author: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
Patna High Court CWJC No.10484 of 2008 (16) dt.18-11-2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10484 of 2008
======================================================
Kapildeo Sharma
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shiw Kr. Prabhakar, Advocate
For the Union of India Mr Sanjay Kumar, ASG
Mr Manoj Kr. Singh, CGC
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kr. Choudhary, AAG 13
Mr.Meera Singh, AC to AAG 13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
16 18-11-2014Reply to the counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the petitioner.
Initially, petitioner filed this writ petition against the State Government as State Government stopped providing fund for grant of freedom fighter pension to the petitioner but during the pendency of this writ petition Union of India was also made party to this writ petition.
It is an admitted position that the petitioner was granted freedom fighter pension some time in the year 1989 and he has been getting pension but in CWJC no.10638/2001, this court directed the State Government as well as the Union of India to verify the claim of those persons who were getting freedom fighter pension as it came to notice of the court that some scrupulous persons, having prepared forged and fabricated documents, were availing the benefit of freedom fighter pension. On the basis of the above stated direction of this court, State Government as well as Central Government verified documents of those persons who were getting freedom fighter pension and in that course, District Magistrate, Jehanabad got verified the documents of the Patna High Court CWJC No.10484 of 2008 (16) dt.18-11-2014 2 petitioner and stopped pension of the petitioner by not providing fund for grant of pension as the documents as well as age of the petitioner were found doubtful. An explanation was called for from the petitioner and he submitted his explanation before the concerned authority and when the State Government did not release fund for grant of freedom fighter pension to the petitioner, petitioner filed this writ petition. During the pendency of this writ petition the Union of India, on the basis of recommendation of the State Government, cancelled the pension of the petitioner vide letter dated 24.07.2014 and directed for recovery of amount of pension which had been drawn by the petitioner. The aforesaid decision of the Central Government has been challenged by the petitioner by filing I.A. no. 5845/2014.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raises two fold contentions. Firstly, he submits that the Central Government did not apply its judicial mind and agreed with the recommendation of the State Government treating it as gospel truth. Continuing his submission, he submits that the Central Government did not consider the points and explanation raised by the petitioner in its reply to the Central Government as well as State Government.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon decision of Dr. Rabindra Nath Singh vs The State of Bihar and others reported in 1983 BBCJ page 33 wherein it has been held that consideration means application of mind. Having relied upon the decision, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of letter dated 24.07.2014, it would appear that there was complete non-application of mind by the concerned authority for cancellation of the pension of the petitioner. The second contention of the petitioner is that the Union of India cancelled the pension of the petitioner having relied upon recommendation of the State Government but prior to Patna High Court CWJC No.10484 of 2008 (16) dt.18-11-2014 3 cancellation of the pension, neither the State Government nor the Union of India furnished relevant documents to the petitioner and what to say to other documents, Union of India did not even take pain to supply enquiry report of the State of Bihar to the petitioner. Therefore, the above stated conduct of the authority of the Union of India and the State of Bihar is nothing but only violation of natural justice. He further points out that after cancellation of pension of the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Jehanabad has ordered for institution of FIR against the petitioner and, therefore, it is expedient in the interest of justice that till final decision of this writ petition, no coercive step should be taken against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that I.A. no. 2930/2014 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner but the said I.A. has not been brought on record.
Learned counsel for the Union of India submits that before issuance of letter dated 24.07.2014, all the relevant documents had been supplied to the petitioner and, therefore, now, at this stage, petitioner can not say that relevant documents had not been supplied to him.
Since I.A. no. 2930/2014 has not been placed on record by the office and furthermore, there is no proper pagination, I think it proper to direct the office to place I.A. no. 2930/2014 as well as other relevant documents on record and also do pagination within one week.
Let this matter be listed after one week under the same heading. However, it is ordered that till final decision of this writ petition, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner.
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) shahid U