IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2053 of 2007 Hardeo Prasad Singh, son of Late Janakdhari Singh, resident of village Singariawan, Police Station Fatuha (at present Shahjahanpur), District- Patna Versus 1. The Union of India 2. Sri Dinesh Singh, Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighter Section, Govt. of India, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi- 11 0003. 3. Sri P.K.Kaul, Under Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighter Section, Govt. of India, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi- 11 0003. 4. Sri B.Sarkar, Chief Controller of Accounts, Pay and Accounts Officer (Pension and Miscellaneous) Ministry of Home Affairs, 10/2 Jam Nagar House, New Delhi-110011 5. The State of Bihar through Sri Afzal Amanullah, the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 6. Sri Indu Bhushan Karn, the Joint Secretary, Department of Home (Special) Govt. of Bihar, Patna 7. Dr. B.Rajendra, the District Magistrate, Patna 8. Mr. Ajay Makan, Minister of State for Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. ----------- For the petitioner :- M/s Ajay Kumar Thakur & Md. Imiteyaz Ahmad For the State : Mr. Vinod Kumar, AC to SC-1. For Union of India: - M/S Sanjay Kumar, CGC & Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate. ------------ 10. 4.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Central Government. The petitioner alleges willful violation of the order dated 28.2.2006 of this Court passed in CWJC No. 10153 of 2004. By the said order this Court had quashed the impugned order passed by the authorities of the State and the Central Government and a direction was issued to pay Freedom Fighter Pension as was being paid before the impugned order was passed. It was held by this Court that the whole process was vitiated, the enquiry itself was of no effect and accordingly there was no justification either for cancelling 2 or stopping the Freedom Fighter Pension sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. In the aforesaid case no counter affidavit had been filed by the Central Government and subsequently Civil Review No. 128/2007 was filed on behalf of the authorities of the Central Government which was ultimately dismissed by this Court by order dated 1.7.2009. However, it was made clear in that order that it would be open to the Central Government to initiated a fresh enquiry into the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, if so advised. In the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite party no.3, the Joint Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Government of India it is stated that after the order in Civil Review No. 128/2007 was passed the case of the petitioner was considered afresh along with his various certificates, etc. , and it was found that the petitioner was only about 11 years of age in 1942 as per his own date of birth mentioned as 1.2.1931 in his service record with the State Government and after such de novo enquiry the Central Government came to the conclusion that he was not eligible for grant of Freedom Fighter Pension by order dated 11.9.2009. Learned counsel for the Central Government further refers to an order dated 1.8.2006 passed in MJC No.95/2006 in which in similar circumstances, this Court had held that it would not be possible to hold that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the courts order. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to distinguish the said case from the present matter. It is submitted by him that at least for the period from the order dated 28.2.2006 till fresh order was passed after de novo enquiry the petitioner will be entitled to Freedom Fighter Pension. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the order dated 1.8.2006 passed in MJC No. 95/2006 in the case of another petitioner this Court finds substantial similarity in the two cases and accordingly, does not find it a fit case for proceeding further with the contempt proceedings. The contempt application is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the fresh order and action of the authorities in appropriate proceedings. S. Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)