IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9756 of 2006 RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 5. 24.2.2009 Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Government of India as also the Counsel for the State. Mr. Sharma after some argument seeks permission to withdraw this application as he would not like to go into the questions of fact recording a finding on the age of the petitioner. Mr. Sharma, however, would bring to the notice of this Court that on the earlier occasion when the pension was granted to the petitioner there was no misrepresentation on his part and that few of this document went to show his age which was also acted upon by the authorities. He would, therefore, submit that while the petitioner will not expect any future pension, if the authorities have come to a conclusion that the participation of the petitioner in freedom struggle was not possible, at least that part of the impugned order by which he has been subjected to recovery of the amount already 2 paid to him for the period 29.12.1997 to 16.5.2006 may be modified/set aside. This Court on perusal of the counter affidavit would find that no material has been disclosed showing any deliberate misrepresentation of the petitioner. It appears that a controversy of the age and consequently the participation of the petitioner in the freedom struggle emerged only at a subsequent stage in 2006, after grant of pension to him in 1997 and therefore, this Court while affirming the impugned order as a whole as with regard to canceling the grant of freedom fighter pension would partly modify the portion of the impugned order by which recovery was sought to be made from the petitioner of the amount already paid to him between 29.12.1997 to 16.5.2006. With the aforementioned observations/direction this application is permitted to be withdrawn. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/