IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11550 of 2006 LAKSHMAN MISHRA Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner :- Binod Nand Mishra, Advocate For the State of Bihar :- G.P. 6 For the Union of India :- Mr. S.N. Pathak, (S.C. C.G.) 2 17.2.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. In this writ application, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- “(i) For issuance of an order, direction or writ including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter dated 14.11.1985 issued by A.S. Keraketta, the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Home, Government of India, New Delhi, declining to grant/approve the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension from Central Revenue to the petitioner. (ii) For issuance of an order, direction or writ including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension from Central Revenue in the light of the recommendation of the State Advisory Committee contained in memo no. 1447 dated 20.9.1991. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate declaration holding that the petitioner is entitled to receive the Freedom Fighter’s pension in view of recommendation of the State Advisory Committee and petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to non-availability of records from the Government source. (iv) For any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 2 Counsel for the petitioner would submit that this writ application filed even after 21 years from the date of initial rejection vide order dated 14th November, 1985 will not affect the right of the petitioner and such writ application would be maintainable despite delay of almost 21 years because the case of the petitioner had remained pending even thereafter. It is very difficult for this Court to understand this submission of the counsel of the petitioner for the reason that the case of the petitioner was rejected for once and ever by an order dated 14th November, 1985 as would be evidenced from the following passage of the impugned order:- “lsok esa] Jh y{e.k feJ] xzke& lksuo’kkZ] iks0 ckFk] Fkkuk& e/ksiqj] ftyk & e/kqcuhA fo’k;%& dsUnzh; jktLo ls Lora=rk lSfud lEeku isa”ku dh eatwjhA egksn;] vkids rkjh[k 4-1-82 ds vkosnu i= ds lanHkZ esa eq>s ;g crkus dk funs”k gqvk gSs fd fuEufyf[kr dkj.k@dkj.kksa ls vkidk ekeyk isa”ku ;kstuk ds vUrxZr ugha vkrk gSA 1- vkidks jkT; ljdkj us isa”ku nsus dk vuq”kalk ugha dh gSA 2- vkius viuh ;kruk ds leFkZu esa dksbZ ekU; izek.k i= ugha fn;k gSA vr% vkidks isa”ku Lohd`r djuk laHko ugha gSA 3 Hkonh; g0@& ¼,0 ,l0 dsjdsV~Vk½ d`rs voj lfpo] Hkkjr ljdkj” As a matter of fact, the requirement of the scheme is that the nodal agency, being the State Government of Bihar, must make a recommendation. There was no recommendation in favour of the petitioner till 14th of November, 1985 and this fact is also not disputed. Moreover, the scheme as also the instructions printed in original prescribed proforma of an application itself required that any claim of sufferings by the freedom fighter has to be supported by the document as evidence. Therefore, for two reasons in the impugned order both being relevant to the scheme, can not be held to be bad. If the petitioner had any grievance as with regard to the aforementioned order he had to approach this Court immediately thereafter and not after 21 years as has been done by him. The unexplained delay in approaching this Court would by itself be sufficient to dismiss this writ application of the petitioner. That however would not be the end of the matter. The second relief of the petitioner is based on the premises that later on his case was recommended by the State Government and therefore the same should be 4 made a basis for a direction by this Court to the Government of India to reconsider its decision with regard to the grant of pension. Such far-fetched relief prayed by the petitioner is also fit to be rejected. The State Government in its wisdom, on whatever materials, may have a second thought but that does not oblige the Government of India to take a different decision. The Government of India had taken its decision in the year 1985 and there is nothing in scheme which would require the Government of India to reconsider its decision on merit when the two reasons were not bad on the day the impugned order was passed. In the opinion of this Court, the review of an administrative decision is only permissible when it can be shown that the earlier decision had suffered from any factual error. In the present case, when the application of the petitioner was rejected by the Government of India, admittedly, there was no recommendation of the State Government and its Advisory Committee. The subsequent recommendation of the State Government cannot be a ground for review. The petitioner, in fact, had also not produced his document within the time limit and his original application form was without any proof of his having undergone imprisonment or suffering 5 in course of freedom struggle. The petitioner has also not given any such reason in the writ application for discovery of those documents after almost twenty years of the earlier rejection of his case for grant of pension by the Government of India and in that view of the matter, this writ application must be dismissed as it tends to raise only a stale claim. That being so, this application, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)