IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3232 of 2006 HARIBANSH NARAYAN SINGH@ HARIBANSH SINGH Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- Counsel for the Petitioner :- Dr. Ratan Kumar Counsel for Union of India :- Mr. Sudhir Singh Counsel for State of Bihar :- P.K. Verma 2 9.2.2009 Heard counsel for parties. It is not in doubt that the petitioner’s earlier application for grant of pension under the Freedom Fighter Pension Samman Scheme was rejected in the year 1973 vide Annexure-4 Series to the writ application with reference to the petitioner’s application dated 16.7.1972 only on the ground that the annual income of the petitioner was more than Rs. 4,999/-. It is also not in dispute that subsequently when in the year 1980, a Samman Scheme came into force giving another opportunity to the freedom fighters to file their application, the petitioner filed his application on 20th of July, 1981 which was also duly considered by the State Government and was ultimately recommended on 7th of May, 1994 (Annexure-6). Counsel for the petitioner however, submits that no decision, whatever on the aforementioned recommendation of the State Government, has been communicated either to the petitioner or to the State Government and as such, this writ application has been filed. 2 It has to be noted that this writ application was filed on 16.3.2006 after service of copy on both the offices of the Advocate General as also on the Counsel for Standing Counsel of the Government of India but, even in a period of three years, no counter affidavit has been filed till date. That being so, no fruitful purpose will be served if the case is now adjourned for filing of the counter affidavit specially when all that has to be looked into is as to whether any final decision as with regard to the grant of pension under the Freedom Fighter Pension Samman Scheme with reference to the aforementioned recommendation of the State Government, has been taken or not. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the authorities of the Government of India to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of his claim as submitted in the application with the help of the documents as also in the light of the recommendation of the Government of Bihar and take a final decision for grant of pension or otherwise within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the petitioner’s pension is sanctioned by the Government of India, the petitioner will be entitled for both the arrears and 3 current but, if for any reason, the application of the petitioner is rejected then the Respondents will be under obligation to give reasons in support of their decision. With the aforementioned observations/directions, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)