IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9792 of 2007 AKHILESH NARAYAN SINGH @ Akhilesh Narayan Sinha, son of late Ram Dahin Singh, resident of Village- Bhaismara, P.S.-Tekari, District- Gaya, at present Mohalla- New Colony, Chotaki Delha, P.S.-Gaya, District- Gaya. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 4. The Deputy Collector, General Branch, Gaya. 5. The Union of India, through the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home (Freedom Fighter Division), Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi- 3. . . . Respondents. For the Petitioner : M/s Bindhyachal Singh, Shailesh Kumar, Advs. For the State : Mr. Shankar Kumar AC to AAG V For Union of India : Mr. Binay Kr. Pandey, CGC ----------- 2/ 25.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as Union of India. The petitioner was earlier granted Freedom Fighter Pension vide letter no.CZ/114/G/70672/82-FF/Bihar dated 14.05.1998 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Home Ministry, Government of India, as contained in Annexure-4. After issuance of the aforesaid letter for grant of Freedom Fighter Pension, petitioner received a letter vide Memo No. 624 dated 04.07.2000 issued under the signature of Additional Collector, Gaya for suspension of Freedom Fighter Pension. Petitioner submits that vide letter no.CZ/114/G/70672/82- FF (Bihar) dated 07.02.2001, as contained in Annexure-9, the Freedom Fighter Pension granted to the petitioner was suspended on account of their being some discrepancies in the age. The petitioner filed a writ application before this Court, which was disposed of with - 2 - an observation that if petitioner files a representation before the Union of India / authority concerned for redressal of his grievance, the same will be disposed of expeditiously, the aforesaid order was passed on 02.09.2003 in C.W.J.C. No. 12655 of 2000. Thereafter the petitioner filed a detailed representation before the Union of India, as contained in Annexure-11. Learned counsel further submits that despite filing of the representation, the same has not been disposed of as yet. He submits that in any view of the matter petitioner has not received any communication from the respondents. Counsel for the Union of India submits that he has no instruction whether the representation has been disposed of or not. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that this Court by or order dated 02.09.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12655 of 2000 has observed that in case a representation is filed, the Union Government will dispose of the same expeditiously. Though more than 6 - 7 years have been passed, the petitioner has not received any communication regarding disposal of his representation. As such, I direct the respondent no.-5 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by a reasoned order. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)