IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.899 of 2009 RAJENDRA SINGH . Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS . ----------- 08 15.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State of Bihar. The petitioner, who claims to have been sanctioned freedom fighter pension, came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15311 of 2006 when payment of the same was suspended for holding some enquiry with regard to his entitlement. The pension has been granted to him under orders of the Government of India, while the suspension has been ordered by the District Magistrate of Patna. The impugned judgment itself notices the procedure that the Central Government sanctions pension on the recommendation of the State Government. Therefore, the power for suspension or the cancellation shall naturally vest with the Union of India. It may seek assistance of the State authorities for purposes of holding an enquiry, but not that the State Government could arrogate to itself the power to withhold pension pending any enquiry without concurrence of the Union of India. The order-sheet of this case reflects a very 2 sorry state of affairs on part of the State authorities. On 16.3.2010 this Court noticed that the impugned judgment dated 19.2.2009 had granted four months time to the State Government and Union of India authorities to conjointly take a final decision in the matter. Nothwithstanding the passage of more than a year, the respondents were yet to take a decision. This Court was further constrained to observe that it may have to initiate contempt proceeding, if no final decision was taken by the authorities. On 31.3.2010, this Court was informed by the counsel for the Union of India that it had sought information on 20.01.2010 and 25.2.2010 from the Secretary (Home), Government of Bihar, of the materials on which the District Magistrate, Patna had withhold the payment of freedom fighter pension of the appellant, and which had not been replied to. This Court noticed that the queries being made by the Union of India from the State authority was much beyond the period of four months as directed in the original order. Mr. Pathak appearing on behalf of the Union of India submits that in terms of the order dated 31.3.2010 he served a copy of the counter affidavit of the Union of India in the office of the 3 Advocate General, but has received no copy of any counter affidavit filed by the State of Bihar as directed by this Court. Learned counsel for the State makes the usual refrain of further time to seek instructions. The attitude of the State authority disturbs the Court, more so when this Court in the order impugned prima facie noticed lack of jurisdiction in an part of the State authorities but was considerate to grant reasonable time to enable the respondents to conjointly take a final appropriate decision. We are not persuaded to grant any further latitude to the State authority in the matter considering that his pension stands suspended since 2006. The petitioner is held entitled to his entire arrears of freedom fighter samman pension withheld from 2006 till date as also continued future pension to be paid to him within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before the District Magistrate, Patna. Needless to add that we have not expressed any opinion on any enquiry that may be held in accordance with law on the entitlement of 4 the appellant when matters shall abide by such fresh enquiry to be conducted in accordance with law and final orders passed by the appropriate authority. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.) (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)