IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16293 of 2009 1. SHER BAHADUR SINGH NEPALI S/O LATE TANKI SINGH NEPALI R/OMOH LAL BAZAR, P.S.BETTIAH TOWN, DISTT- WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH, THE ASSTT. ACCOUNTS OFFICER,(PENSIONS &MISC) MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, 2/10 JAM NAGAR HOUSE, NEW DELHI-110011 2. THE ACCOUNT CONTROLLER, DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE CENTRAL PENSION ACCOUNTING OFFICER TRIKOOT-II, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110066 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERALS JHARKHAND,RANCHI 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERALS BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 6. THE TREASURY OFFICER, ZILA KOSHAGAR BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN 7. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA BETTIAH , WEST CHAMPARAN ----------- 3. 30.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Union of India, the Accountant General, Ranchi and Patna, for the State Bank of India as also for the State of Bihar. The petitioner seeks a mandamus against the respondents to issue a duplicate copy of his Pension Payment Order No. 7982 which is stated to have been lost so that he can continue to withdraw the Freedom Fighter pension from the Treasury Officer at Bettiah as well as the Branch Manager, S.B.I., Bettiah. He has been unable to draw his pension since August, 2007 on account of misplacement of his pension payment order on 13.9.2007 for which he is stated to have lodged a 2 Sanha also. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted P.P.O. No. 7982 after full satisfaction in 1972 and continued to draw the Freedom Fighter Pension until it came to be lost on 13.9.2007. His request is not being heeded to in his old age of 84 years. He is being left to the vagaries of the respondents. Counter affidavit has been filed only on behalf of the Union of India. The counter affidavit takes it beyond the pale of controversy the genuineness of the petitioner having been granted Freedom Fighter Pension in 1972 and issuance of Pension Payment Order No. 7982. That only leaves the issue of a duplicate pension payment order. The Union of India has filed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, a truncated docuemt, Paragraph- 26.3 and 26.4 of which reads as follows and which is very relevant for the present controversy:- “26.3 In cases in which pensioner’s portion of the PPO is lost, worn or torn and it is sought to be renewed, the paying branch will forward the request of the pensioner, alongwith both halves/disburser’s half of the PPO to the CPAO through the Link Branch for renewal in terms of the provisions of rules 331-332 of CTRs. In order that payment of pension is not unnecessarily delayed in such cases in the absence of 3 disburser’s portion of the PPO, care may be taken to send the connected documents to the CPAO immediately after payment for a month is made, so as to leave sufficient time with the CPAO to do the needful and return the documents by the time payment for the next month becomes due. The CPAO will also be reminded by the paying branch in cases where the return of the documents is unduly delayed. 26.4 In case where disburser’s portion of PPO is lost by the Paying branch of the bank, the Paying branch will report the matter to the concerned Pay & Accounts Office through the usual channel, i.e. Link Branch, CPAO requesting for issue of duplicate disburser’s portion of PPO. For this purpose, the Paying Branch will forward the photocopy of the pensioner’s portion of PPO duly attested by the Bank Manager and certificate indicating the month upto which the payment has been made to the pensioner. CPAO will send this information to the concerned PAO for issue of duplicate Disburser portion of PPO.” Once the petitioner is acknowledged to be receiving Freedom Fighter Pension, if it has been lost and procedures for the manner in which an application for a duplicate is to be dealt with has been laid down in the guidelines, and which prima facie requires appropriate action on part of the respondents themselves, conjointly, the writ application is disposed with a common direction to all the official respondents to act in unison so as to 4 ensure that the duplicate pension payment order is issued to the petitioner in accordance with law within a maximum period of two months from today as this order has been passed in Court in presence of counsel of each of the official respondents. The liability fixed by the Court is joint upon the official respondents for which they shall together remain answerable to the Court for non-compliance within the time fixed. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)