IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6787 of 2002 RAMESHWAR PRASAD VERMA Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 4 23.01.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Union of India and the State of Bihar. It is not in doubt that the petitioner was earlier sanctioned and paid pension under the scheme of Freedom Fighters Pension. However, the Central Government on being informed by the State Government, in the light of an earlier order passed by this Court, that order granting pension was issued by Central Government without enquiry and recommendation of the State Government in favour of 27 persons in all including the petitioner, had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the order granting pension should not be recalled/ rescinded. The petitioner on receipt of show cause notice dated 18th of January, 2002 had filed his show cause reply where after the impugned order dated 4th of March 2002 has been passed cancelling the grant of such pension granted earlier to the petitioner and in fact 27 persons on the ground that all of them were based on fraudulent/non-existing recommendation of the Government of Bihar and as such could not be sustained. - 2 - Counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that one amongst these 27 persons namely Tripti Narayan Singh had moved before this Court and this Court had set aside the order of cancellation of his pension by order dated 13.11.2002 in C.W.J.C.No. 7384 of 2002 and as such the petitioner would be also entitled for similar relief. Counsel for the petitioner has not annexed the copy of this order dated 13.11.2002 along with the writ application and therefore, the respondents have not been able to deal and/or explain with the case of the Tripti Narayan Singh. This Court, however, from a bare reading of the said order dated 13.11.2002 in C.W.J.C. No. 7384 of 2002 would find that in principle this Court has not decided the question on merit as with regard to grant of pension to Tripti Narayan Singh. All that has been said in the order is that since the show cause notice seeking cancellation of the pension was not served on him and the order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing, such order was bad and the Central Government was given liberty to pass a fresh order for giving notice and/or opportunity of hearing to Tripti Narayan Singh. This Court would fail to understand as to how that order can be relied by the petitioner for supporting his case specially when the petitioner admits that in his case, he - 3 - has not only received show cause notice as contained in Annexure-5 but also had filed his reply whereafter the order contained in Annexure-6 has been passed. That being so, the case of Tripti Narayan Singh is distinguishable. In fact counsel for either side is not in a position to apprise this Court as to whether on remand, the pension of the Tripti Narayan Singh has been restored or stand, finally in withdrawn and cancelled. That being so, when the petitioner has pressed no other point, the writ application must be held to be wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)