IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1075 of 2009 CHANDRAJEET SINGH Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh, Adv. For union of India : Mr.Gopesh Kumar, C.G.C. For the State : Mr. Mohan Kumar Singh A.C to .I, 4 23.02.2010 Heard learned the counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the Union of India. By the order under appeal, the learned single judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and has refused to interfere with the impugned order dated 5th May 2004 appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition whereby the competent authority of the Central Government has refused to restore the Freedom Fighter pension to the appellant. It has been submitted on behalf of appellant that in a criminal case lodged at the instance of the concerned authority that he had obtained Freedom Fighter pension wrongly, the age of the appellant was determined by the Medical Board and it showed that he was aged about 20 years in 1942 Freedom Movement and, accordingly, the criminal case failed. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the writ court committed error in not correcting the mistake of the respondent authorities of the Central Government who have relied upon appellant’s application filed in 1981 in which he had claimed his age as 52 years leading to a conclusion that he was only 12/13 years of age when he claimed to have participated in freedom struggle and undergone imprisonment. The writ court found the decision making process to be free of any illegality and found nothing wrong in the action of the authorities who had placed reliance upon own admission of the appellant in his application in respect of his age. From the show cause notice extracted in the order under appeal it appears that the authorities had applied their mind to the prevailing law whereunder before the age of 16 years a child could not be imprisoned in jail and had to be kept separately in homes for young juveniles. That renders the certificate of a co-prisoner in ordinary jail, highly doubtful. In the facts of the case, we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the writ court. The appeal is dismissed in limine as one without merits. There shall be no order as to costs. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (C.M.Prasad,J)