IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1276 of 2008 MOSMAT MANORMA DEVI, W/O LATE RAMNANDAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHULHAN BIGHA, P.S.- KURTHA, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA. 2. MADHUKAR GUPTA, THE SECRETARY, HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CENTRAL SECRETARIATE, NEW DELHI. 3. SRI P.K. KAUL, UNDER SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, FREEDOM FIGHER DIVISION, LOK NAYANK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. 4. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 5. SRI JAI PRAKASH MANDAL, UNDER SECRETARY, FREEDOM FIGHTER, HOME MINISTRY OLD SECRETARIATE, BIHAR, PATNA. 6. SRI DEEPAK KR. GANGULY, JAIL SUPERINTEDNET, SUB- JAIL, JEHANABAD. ………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2 26.11.2008 This contempt application has been filed for alleged disobedience of order dated 13.8.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4841 of 2004. The said writ application was filed by one Ramnandan Prasad Singh. The writ application was disposed of with a direction to the authorities of the State Government to process the application of the petitioner for grant of Swantantrata Senanai Samman Pension and after verification of the genuineness of his case, recommend the same to the Central Government for early decision in the matter. A certificate from the Jail Superintendent was enclosed with the writ application containing the name of the sufferer as 2 Ramnandan Prasad Singh. Since the name of Ramnandan Prasad Singh appeared at every place, the opposite parties made enquiry in respect of Ramnandan Prasad Singh and have found that his claim of being freedom fighter is not supported by reliable materials. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submits that after the disposal of the writ application the husband of the petitioner died and therefore his widow i.e. present petitioner filed an application to the authorities vide Annexure-2, enclosing the orders of this Court and other documents, necessary for enquiry. In the petition, the name of her husband was mentioned as Ramnandan Singh. Thus there arose confusion with regard to correct name of the husband of the petitioner and the freedom fighter in whose respect claim for pension was filed. Today learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of Ramnandan Singh was alias name of the husband of the petitioner and both the names i.e. Ramnandan Prasad Singh and Ramnandan Singh 3 should be treated as of the same person. This fact was never brought to the notice of the opposite parties earlier. Therefore, I do not find fault with the opposite parties in processing the claim of the petitioner taking into account the name of her husband as Ramnandan Prasad Singh. In that view of the matter giving benefit of doubt to the opposite parties, this contempt matter is dropped. However, petitioner will be at liberty to file fresh application, with all supporting documents, to the competent authority of the opposite parties for re- consideration of the claim afresh and verification of the claim of the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner will also at liberty to produce evidence with her application with regard to alias name being used by the husband of the petitioner. If such application is filed, the opposite parties shall make enquiry afresh in respect of her claim of her deceased husband being a freedom fighter, and if the claim is found to be genuine, shall recommend the same 4 to the Central Government for an early decision. It is expected that the enquiry in the matter shall be completed by the opposite parties within a period of three months from the date of the filing of the application by the petitioner. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh , J. )