Patna High CourtMJC/2512/2015disposed

Smt. Savitri Devi v. The State Of Bihar Through Sri Aamir Subhani Commissioner Cum Secretary Home Special Department Bih

2018-01-05The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2512 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8263 of 2012 ====================================================== Smt. Saitri Devi Wife of Dharam Datt Singh Resident of Village - Rasidpur, Police Station - Arwal, District - Arwal .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar Through Sri Amir Subhani Commissioner Cum Secretary Home Special Department Bihar

2. Sri Uma Shankar Urcharge, The Under Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Freedom Fighter Cell, Bihar, Patna

3. Sri K.K. Pathak, The Union of India through the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi

4. Sri Dipak Kumar, The Joint Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighter Division, CZ Section NDCC IT Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi

5. Sri Kalra, The Under Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighter Division CZ Section NDCC, IT Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh For the State : MrPrabhakar Jha, GP 27 For the Union of India : Mr. S D Sanjay, Addl. S.G. Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 05-01-2018 On 07.03.2013, CWJC No. 8263 of 2012 was disposed of directing the State of Bihar and the Union of India to consider the claim for the Freedom Fighters Pension and take a final decision.

On a perusal show cause filed by the Union of India and the State Government it is clear that the matter has been considered and rejected by the Union of India as is evident from

Patna High Court MJC No.2512 of 2015 (3) dt.05-01-2018 2/2 Annexure-A dated 21.01.2014. Once the State of Bihar had forwarded its recommendation and information to the Union of India, and the Union of India has taken a decision vide AnnexureA, no further indulgence is called for in the matter. In case the grievance of the petitioner still persists in respect of the manner in which her claim is rejected it gives a fresh cause of action to the petitioner but it is not a case of taking action against the respondents for initiating contempt. Accordingly, the respondents are discharged from the proceeding and the application stands disposed of. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) mrl./- U