IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.788 of 2009 BHAVESH KUMAR JHA Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Dhirendra Nath Oja Mr. Chottelal Narayan Singh, S.C.I Dr. Ajeet Kumar A.C. to S.C.I For Union of India: Kalpana (C.G.C.) ------------ 4. 04.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the Union of India and also learned counsel for the State. The writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 16564 of 2004 was originally preferred by mother of the appellant for claiming arrears of freedom fighter family pension to which she laid claim as one of the wives of Late Ratneshwar Jha. She had come to this Court on the earlier occasion in the year 2002 after the death of first wife of freedom fighter who till her life had received full family pension. After death of the first wife, the mother of the appellant was allowed family pension in the year 2002 with effect from the date of the death of the first wife. The appellant wants this Court to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the authorities to pay arrear of family pension for the entire period when the first wife had received full family pension. The basis for the claim is that a clarificatory circular dated 13th October, 2000 against such claim, came after the death of the original freedom fighter in the year 1997. Hence it can not apply to appellant’s claim. It is notable that the said circular of 2000 fully considered - 2 - the provisions relating to family pension in the government sector and held that in case of more than one legally wedded wife of the deceased freedom fighter, the family pension would have to be shared by the widows equally. The writ Court has noticed that claim by the mother of the appellant was made though this Court for the first time in the year 2002 after the death of first wife and clear intention was not to share the family pension being given to the first widow. We are of the view that since the claim is purely monetary and belated, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ Court has rightly declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-