IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16034 of 2006 LAKHMATI DEVI Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Banwari Sharma, Advocate For the Union of India: Mr. Sarvadeo Singh,Advo For the State: Mr. Ravi Verma.Advocate. ------------- 3 20/4/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the Central Government as also counsel for the State. The petitioner, widow of Late Dev Kumar Singh, a freedom fighter who had been sanctioned pension under the scheme on 28.11.1985, after death of her husband on 1.2.2001, was called upon to explain as to how pension granted to her husband and subsequently being paid to her on the death of her husband was justified. The petitioner thereafter had also filed an exhaustive show cause reply along with documents, but the impugned order does not take notice any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, nor does it even refer to any document annexed with such show cause reply. By now it is well settled that mere issuance of a show cause notice by itself will not be the sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice. Once a show cause notice is issued and reply thereof is filed by the affected person, the same has to be 2 also considered and such consideration must emanate from the order itself. In the impugned order however only history of the case has been recorded but the reasons which had weighed upon the respondent authorities of the Government of India, for holding that earlier pension granted to husband of the petitioner on 28.11.1985 was incorrect or unjustified, has not at all been spelt out. The plea of the petitioner that her husband was in Camp jail in Patna in between 1.9.1942 to 31.5.1943 and he was aged about 21 years in the 1942 freedom movement did require examination fact in the light of explanation submitted by the petitioner. Merely because the Collector of the district in his report had mentioned that the petitioner had failed to produce any document either in support of the aforementioned facts or had not substantiated her such claim with regard to her husband being a Freedom Fighter could not have been made solitary ground for passing the impugned order Considering all these aspects, this Court would hold that the impugned order dated 28.6.2004 is violative of the principles of natural justice and accordingly the same is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the competent authority of the Government of India which now must pass a fresh speaking order after considering the show cause reply filed by the petitioner (Annexure 5). 3 In the event, the competent authority of the Government of India would require any further clarification from the petitioner on any of the facts, the same shall be brought to her notice before its being used to her detriment. As the petitioner is a widow and has been denied pension for a period of long seven years this Court would direct that the competent authority of the Government of India must complete his exercise in all respect and pass a reasoned order within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ application is finally disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)