IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11427 of 2005 Kamleshwari Prasad Choudhary, Son of Late Kuldip Choudhary, Resident of Village Kathaila, Post Kharik Bazar, P.S. Naugachhia, Dist. Bhagalpur. ------ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director Cum Under Secretary, Home (Special) Deptt. Govt. of Bihar. 3. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur. 4. The Union of India through the Under Secretary Home Ministry, Swatantra Sainani Section, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi- 110003. 5. The Chief Controller of Accounts (Pension and Misce.) Home Ministry Block No.10, Gali No.1 and 2, Jam Nagar, House, New Delhi-110011. ----------- 6 4.5.2009 The only issue involved in this writ application is with regard to the correctness of the impugned order dated 5.7.2005 whereby and whereunder the Government of India has taken a decision to cancel the grant of pension under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme with a further direction to also recover the amount which was paid earlier to the petitioner. It is not in doubt that the petitioner was granted such pension by an order dated 31.3.1998 with effect from 2.1.1982. But, soon thereafter when this Court had reviewed grant of pension under the scheme in a suo-motu action, the case of the petitioner was also reviewed. 2 In course of such review, the Government of India had found the following irregularities in the grant of pension to the petitioner:- ^^2- bl ea=ky; ds /;ku esa ;g ckr ukbZ xbZ gS fd vkosnd mDr ;kstuk ds izko/kkuksa ds v/khu fuEufyf[kr dkj.kksa ls isa”ku ikus ds ik= ugha gS %& d- vkosnd }kjk bl ea=ky; esa izLrqr vkSj jkT; ljdkj ds ek/;e ls izkIr vkosnu i= esa viuh Hkwfexr ;kruk dk iwjk fooj.k ugha fn;k gS] blds vfrfjDr vkosnd us vius vkosnu i= esa dsl la[;k 15@42 dk Hkh dksbZ nkok izLrqr ugha fd;kA [k- jkT; ljdkj }kjk izLrqr vuqiyfC/k izek.k i= ds dsl la[;k 15@42 ds vuqlkj ;g ekeyk Hkksyk HkjbZ o vU; ds fo:) ntZ fd;k x;k FkkA bl ls vkidk mDr ekeys esa “kkfey gksuk LFkkfir ugha gksrk blds vfrfjDr izek.k i= esa vorfjr rF;ksa ds vuqlkj bl dsl dk QSlyk 28-4-44 dks gqvk Fkk ysfdu ;g dgha ij Hkh ugha gS fd bl ekeys esa fdlh O;fDr dks ltk vkidks@vkSj vU; ds fo:) fxjQ~rkjh vkns”k tkjh gq, FksA x- vkidh Hkwfexr ;kruk ds leFkZu esa Jh y{e.k lsu }kjk O;fDrxr tkudkjh izek.k i= ds vuqlkj vkids fo:) fujks/kd vkns”k tkjh fd;s x;s Fks tcfd n.M fo/kku ds vuqlkj fdlh vijkf/kd ekeys esa vijk/kh ds fo:) fxjQ~rkjh vkns”k bR;kfn tkjh fd;s tkrs gSa u fd fujks/kd vkns”k tksfd ekeys dks lansgkLin cukrs gSA blds vfrfjDr izek.k i= nkrk lu~ 1942 esa [kqn tsy esa FksA vr% muds }kjk fuxZr O;fDrxr tkudkjh izek.k i= Lohdk;Z ;ksX; ugha gSA ?k- Lora=rk lSukuh lEeku isa”ku ;kstuk ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr dksbZ O;fDr Lora=rk vkanksyu esa lfdz; :i ls Hkkx ysus ds QyLo:i N% ekg ;k mlls vf/kd ds fy;s Hkwfexr jgk gks isa”ku dk i= gS] c”krsZ ¼d½ og ,d ?kksf’kr vijk/kh Fkk ¼[k½ ftldh fxjQ~rkjh@e`R;w ij iqjLdkj dh ?kks’k.kk dh xbZ Fkh] vFkok ¼x½ ftldh utjcanh ds vkns”k tkjh dj fn;s x;s Fks ysfdu lqiqnZ ugha fd;s x;s FksA vkius viuh Hkwfexr ;kruk ds leFkZu esa ljdkjh lw=ksa ds vuqlkj ljdkj lw=ksa ds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr ,slk dksbZ Hkh lk{; bl ea=ky; esa izLrqr ugha fd;kA** 3 Thus, by the aforementioned letter dated 31st August, 2001, the petitioner was given an opportunity to justify his earlier grant of pension. The petitioner is said to have submitted his reply whereafter the matter was again examined at the level of the State Government who had got yet another enquiry conducted through the Collectorate of Bhojpur district and based on the findings of such enquiry report the Government of India was communicated that the State Government was not in a position to recommend for continuance of grant of pension to the petitioner. On receipt of such report from the State Government, the petitioner was again given a show-cause notice on 30th September, 2004 whereafter the impugned order dated 5.7.2005 has been passed. It would thus be clear that the State Government had examined the representation filed by the petitioner on two occasions and had found that in absence of any authentic document as noted in the show-cause notice, it was not possible to hold that the petitioner had fulfilled all the requirements laid down for grant of pension under the Scheme. 4 Consequently, when the impugned order has been passed on consideration both by the State Government and the Central Government and that too after giving opportunity to the petitioner, this Court would not find any error in the decision making process. As is well settled, this Court is not required to examine the merits of the claim of the petitioner and its limited judicial review can be made only to the decision making process. That being so, once the petitioner was given opportunity to explain the facts and could not produce the document and the earlier documents submitted by him were found to be forged and fabricated, this Court would not find any infirmity in the impugned order. That being so, this application is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)