3 M” V w 5V W19 "...... €7p{mL IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASWR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2M7§ 0122007 PETITIONER :/ Jwala Prasad Shanna S/o Late Shri Sukharu Prasad Shanna , aged about 71 years , resident of Vivekanand Ward No.3, Mahasamund, Post Mahasamund, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (CG). VERSUS 1.Th¢ Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Home , Swatantrata Senani Sambhag, Khan Market, New Delhi . ‘1 2.State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralay, D.K.S.Bui1di11g, Rajpur (CG). V, 4. The Collector, Mahasalnund (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA V- 3. The Collector, Raipur (CG). . g .. a “s . “AXV Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 10m day of December 2010) Heard Iearned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ/direction to the respondents that the petitioner is entitled to Rajya Samman Nidhi/Pension under the provisions of the Swatantrata Sangram Sainik Samman Nidhi Rules, 1972 (for short “the Rules, 1972”) read with the provisions of the Bharat Sarkar Samman Scheme, 1980 (for short “the Scheme, 1980’3. The petitioner further seeks quashment of the order dated 1-3-2007 (Annexure — P/1) whereby the State Government has informed to the petitioner that the petitioner is not eligible to Rajya Samman Nidhi/Pension under the provisions of the Rules, 1972 read with the Scheme, 1980. In the meantime, the Union of India/respondent No.1 has filed its return. ln para 7 of the return it has been categorically stated that despite several communications dated 11-6-2007, 18-6-2007, 5-7-2007, 16—7-2007 and 1-8-2007 (Annexure -- @ww E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.2479 OF 2007 PETITIONER Jwala Prasad Sharma Versus RESPONDENTS The Secretary, Union of Indla Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri R. Pradhan, Advocate for the Union of lndia/ respondent No.1. "x Gowri A/1 to A/5), to furnish verification—cum-recommendation report with supporting evidence, the State Government has not responded to the same. Thus, the Central Government is not in a position to examine the case of the petitioner. This Court in Brijlal ’Sharma v. Union of India & Others1,has considered the provisions of the Rutes, 1972 and the Scheme, 1980 at length. It appears that the decision taken by the State Government was in complete ignorance of the provisions of law, as discussed and explained in Brijlal Sharma (supra). 5. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the State Government has failed to respond to the communications of the Union of s India, the State Government is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the Iight of decision of this Court in Bnjla/ Sharma (supra) and submit complete report to the Union of India for consideration and taking proper decision, in accordance with Iaw, within a period of four weeks. Thereafter, the Union of India is directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance , ‘ with Iaw. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- S.K. Agnihotri Judge 1 2009 (1) CGLJ 482