IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1768 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13645 of 2000 With Interlocutory Application No. 8027 of 2011 With Interlocutory Application No. 8028 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1768 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Under Secretary, Home Ministry, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Jaisalmer House, Mansingh Road, New Delhi .... .... Appellants/Respondents Versus 1. Raghunandan Thakur, S/o Late Raj Narayan Thakur, R/o Village-Laloo Chapra, Police Station- Paroo, District- Muzaffarpur. …. …. Respondent-Petitioner 2. The Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/Respondent ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. S.N.Pathak, (SCCG) For the Respondent State: Mr. Arvind Uzwal, S.C.-25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Patna High Court LPA No.1768 of 2011 (3) dt.05-12-2011 2 / 3 2 3 05-12-2011 Interlocutory Application No. 8027 of 2011: The delay of 133 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No.1768 of 2011: This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the Union of India against the judgment and order dated 27th November 2009 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 13645 of 2000. The matter at dispute is the entitlement of the respondent no.1-writ petitioner to receive pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 framed by the Government of India. According to the writ petitioner, he had participated in ‘Quit India Movement’ in 1942; he was tried by the Sessions Court, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No.140/42 (King Emperor v. Raghunandan Thakur & Ors.). The petition was contested by the Union Government as well as the State Government. According to the authorities below, the writ petitioner failed to produce the original record in support of his claim. He, therefore, was not entitled to pension. The writ petition has been allowed by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has directed that the writ petitioner be paid pension under the aforesaid Samman Pension Scheme from the date of filing the writ petition i.e. from 21st November 2000. Feeling aggrieved, the Government of India has preferred this Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. S.N. Pathak has appeared for the Government of India. He has strenuously urged that the Patna High Court LPA No.1768 of 2011 (3) dt.05-12-2011 3 / 3 3 petitioner failed to establish his case. He, therefore, cannot be granted pension under the aforesaid Samman Pension Scheme. In support thereof, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mukund Lal Bhandari & ors. V. Union of India and Ors., [ 1993 Supp (3) SCC 2] and the unreported judgment of this Court in the matter of Union of India v. the State of Bihar & Ors. [Letters Patent Appeal No.353 and 646 of 1999, decided on 31st January 2000; Coram : Chief Justice Ravi S. Dhavan and Justice Aftab Alam (as they then were)]. We do agree with Mr. Pathak that unless the claim for benefit of pension falls within the four corners of the aforesaid Scheme, such Samman Pension cannot be permitted to the writ petitioner. We, however, find that the claim made by the writ petitioner has not been specifically denied either by the Union of India or by the State Government. In absence of specific denial to the assertions made by the writ petitioner, in our opinion, the learned single Judge but had to make the order in favour of the writ petitioner. Besides, as indicated in the writ petition the writ petitioner is now nearing the age of 100 years, we would not like to call upon the writ petitioner at this advanced age to appear before us to answer the case of the Union Government, which was not made out in the writ petition. For the aforesaid reason, Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)