IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1055 of 2003 YADUNANDAN PRASAD GUPTA Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 3 30.01.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. There is no denial to this fact that at one point of time, on a recommendation by the Government of Bihar, the petitioner was sanctioned pension under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme. Subsequently, in view of the certain observations/directions made in C.W.J.C. No. 10638 of 2001 the Government of Bihar had undertaken a fresh enquiry. In such enquiry, the grant of pension to the petitioner was found to be not in keeping with the requirement laid down in the policy. Consequently, the Government of Bihar had recommended for cancellation of pension of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto the Government of India had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and upon submission of such show cause reply by the petitioner and its consideration, the Government of India has come out with the impugned order, canceling the earlier order granting pension in favour of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in such exercise at least the impugned order does not show any application of mind inasmuch as no reason has been given for such cancellation. Counsel for the Government - 2 - of India in reply, has submitted such reason is actually based on assumption that when earlier the Government of Bihar had recommended for such grant of pension and the Government of India had granted pension on such recommendation, if the recommending authority, the Government of Bihar has on reconsideration sent a negative recommendation and had also sought for cancellation of such pension granted by the petitioner, there was little left for the Government of India save and except to pass the impugned order cancelling the grant of pension to the petitioner. It is very difficult to accept the said submission of the counsel for the Government of India for a simple reason that any order which would visit a person with a panel consequence as in this case, leading to both stoppage of pension as also recovery of the pension already paid to the petitioner, would definitely require at least application of mind by the authority which has earlier granted pension. Such reasons may not be exhaustive yet there would be at least some consideration reflecting as to what was the earlier anomaly in granting of pension of the petitioner as also what defences taken by the petitioner were found to be worth rejection. However, the impugned order in this writ application does not meet either of the two requirement and in fact is - 3 - a bold and nonspeaking order. That being so, this Court is left with no other option but to quash the impugned order dated 4th of March 2002 as contained in Annexure-6 and remit the matter back to the competent authority of the Government of India to pass a fresh order in keeping with the allegations made against the petitioner in the show cause notice as also the reply filed by the petitioner to such show cause notice. In view of the fact that the matter has remained under the zone of dispute for at least last seven years, this Court would direct the competent authority, the Government of India to take a final decision within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that in such exercise if the Government of India would require any further material either from the petitioner or from the State Government, the same must be available by them within a period of one month from the date of such requisition made by the authority of the Government of India. With the aforementioned observations and directions this writ application is allowed. Bibhash ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)