IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.386 of 2010 BDAMA DEVI, wife of late Sheo Narain Prasad Gupta, resident of village Mahajan Tola, Sultanganj, P.S. and P. O. Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The State of Bihar, through Sri Anup Mukherjee, the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. Sri Bhanu Prasad Sharma, Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 4. Sri Dhirendra Prasad, Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur. … Opposite parties. ----------- 3. 06.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Pursuant to the last order dated 23.3.2011, Mr. Rajendra Kumar Chandravansi, Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur is present in person. The show-cause reply has been filed on his behalf containing a communication dated 2.4.2011 disposing of the claim of the petitioner for freedom fighter pension. In such letter it has been mentioned that the freedom fighter pension of the husband of the petitioner was, in fact, suspended by an order of Govt. of India dated 23.2.1990. Counsel for the Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur would also point out that subsequently the said order of suspension of payment of freedom fighter pension was reiterated by the Govt. of India which by order dated 4.1.1996 (Annexure- 6 A to the contempt 2 application) had cancelled the grant of Rs.500/- per month by way of freedom fighter pension to the husband of the petitioner. On the basis of these averments it has been submitted by learned counsel for Treasury Officer that the order of this court dated 17.2.2009 in CWJC No. 5328 of 2006 stands complied inasmuch as the only direction was to make a verification with regard to admissibility of the payment of freedom fighter pension and its payment, if the sanction order of freedom fighter pension dated 1.5.1989 was still valid. From the communication dated 2.4.2011 of the Treasury Officer, it is clear that he, in view of the aforementioned order of suspension and cancellation of freedom fighter pension of the husband of the petitioner, has held that no amount of freedom fighter pension is payable to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of suspension dated 23.2.1990 was in fact stayed and quashed by this Court vide order dated 24.12.1998 in CWJC No. 747 of 1993 but then on being further asked as to whether the said order of cancellation was in relation to the petitioner or her husband, he had frankly conceded that 3 the same was passed in the case of another freedom fighter, namely, Raghunath Kuar. It is thus apparent that the order of this Court was not in favour of the petitioner or her husband so as to be given the benefit of freedom fighter pension after its being suspended and cancelled by a specific order in the case of the petitioner and her husband. Counsel then would contend that since Raghunath Kuar and the husband of the petitioner were detained in same sessions trial and had become eligible for grant of freedom fighter pension on the basis of the aforementioned sessions trial, if this Court had already allowed the claim of freedom fighter pension in the case of Raghunath Kuar, the petitioner and her husband would also be entitled for such payment of arrears and current of freedom fighter pension. As would be apparent from the scope of the order passed by this Court dated 17.2.2009 in CWJC No. 5328 of 2006 that neither this Court was made aware of suspension of the freedom fighter pension of the husband of the petitioner nor of its cancellation in the year 1996 and in fact the writ application was disposed of on the very 4 first date of its hearing by recording as follows:- “ In this case, the widow of late Sheo Narain Prasad Gupta, admittedly a freedom fighter, who was granted pension, has approached for grant of family pension in terms of the decision of the Central Government dated 1st May, 1989. From perusal of the said order of the Government of India, it becomes clear that the petitioner was nominated as family pension holder after the death of her husband, the freedom fighter namely Sheo Narain Prasad Gupta. The petitioner has claimed that her husband died on 8.11.1997 and ever since then, she has been running around to get family pension but the same has not been paid to her. Normally, if the petitioner has fulfilled the requirement in paragraph nos. 3 & 5 of the aforesaid sanction order, there should be no reason for the Treasury Officer of Bhagalpur district to refuse payment of pension to the petitioner. This Court therefore, without keeping the matter pending for filing of the counter affidavit, would direct the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 particularly respondent no.4, the Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur to verify this fact and if it is found that the petitioner has already fulfilled the requirements mentioned in the sanction order dated 1st May, 1989 (Annexure-2), her arrear and current amount of family pension must be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner inasmuch as if it is found that for any reason the sanction order contained in Annexure-2 stands superceded/modified/rescinded, the same 5 will definitely not give the petitioner a right to claim amount of family pension only on the basis of being the widow of a freedom fighter.” From the reading of the aforementioned order, it is more than clear that this Court had neither adjudicated the matter on merits nor had held the petitioner or her husband entitled for payment of freedom fighter pension and had simply directed the authority including the Treasury Officer to verify the fact as with regard to fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the sanction order of freedom fighter pension dated 1.5.1989. Therefore, once this Court would now find that the order of sanction of freedom fighter pension of the husband of the petitioner dated 1.5.1989 had already been rescinded in the year 1996, there would be no question of compelling the opposite parties to make payment of such amount in this contempt application inasmuch as no such direction was given in the connected writ application. That being so, this contempt application on account of compliance of the order of this Court has become infructuous and is, accordingly, dismissed. It however goes without saying that the 6 petitioner can always avail the remedy as against the order passed by the authority depriving her from receiving the amount of arrears and current of freedom fighter pension. The personal appearance of Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur is, dispensed with. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)