IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA Dated this the 2 day of November, 2010 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICE N.KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B.ADI CCC No.3053 of 2010 (Civil) BETWEEN: Shri Ram Krishna S/o Bheern Rao Patange Age 77 years 0cc: Retd. Worker R/o Bhagvan Gaul Mukhtampura Gulbarga—585 105. COMPLAINANT (By Sri. Liyaqat Fareed Ustad, Adv.) AND: 1. Government of India Ministry of home affairs Represented by its Secretary S.D. Kaushik (Freedom fighter Division) Lokanayaka Bhavan 1st floor New Delhi-i 10001. 2. State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary Vidva Shankar DPAR Vidhan Soudha Banalore-56000 1. 8 —-—-—-——---- CT{ESPONDENTS) (ti 4T) Lk cLt t4(iJ )O2_ (By Sri. Archana P. Tiwari, CGSC for Ri Sri. S. S. Kumman, G.A. for R2) This CCC filed U/s 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, praying to, initiate contempt proceeclings against the conienners/accused for non compliance of High Court order dtd.12.01.2010 passed in W.P. No.80012/2010 (GM-RES) vide Annexure-A. in the interest of justice and equity. This CCC coming on for Orders. N.KUMkR, J.. delivered the following: OR DER This complaint is filed by the complainant complaining that the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.80012/10 to 3 consider the recommendation of the State Government as per Annexure-E dated 24.11.2006 and Annexure-F dated 17.07.2008 and the petitioner’s representation dated 21.07.2008 as per Annexure-G as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law with reference to grant of pension tinder the scheme of Swatantra Sainik Sa.mman Pension is not complied with. 2. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance. 3. The second respondent submitted that they have made recommendation to the Central Government. The Central Government has filed detailed statement of objections and also has passed an order as per Annexure-R2 contending that recommendation of the State Government is not binding on them and on verification of the available documents and several certificates produced by the complainant, it is clear that he was 4 detained after the liberation of the State of Hyderabad. Therefore they have declined to grant pension. 4. The learned Counsel for the complainant contends that the learned Single Judge of this Court has taken a view that once the State Government grants pension, that Is sufficient proof for the Central Government also to grant pension. Therefore, he submits that the order passed by the Central Government is erroneous and appropriate direction is to be issued. 5. All that this Court has said is, to consider the representation in the light of the recomnwndation. Now in compliance of the order, the Central Government has rejected the request of the complainant after considering the recommendation of the State Government and representation of the complainant. If ft is erroneous. it is for the complainant to challenge the same in an appropriate forum and it cannot be S the subject of contempt proceedings. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed. Sd/ JUDGE Sd/s JUDGE ksp/