High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Shyam Sundar Singh vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 6 December, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Shyam Sundar Singh vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 6 December, 2010
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                   CWJC No.16602 of 2009
         1. SHYAM SUNDAR SINGH S/O LATE RAM AUTAR SINGH R/O
         VILL.- BADAUNA, NARSANDA, P.S.- CHANDI IN THE DISTRICT OF
         NALANDA
                                 Versus
         1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY
         GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
         2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) GOVERNMENT OF
         BIHAR, PATNA
         3. SRI SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL S/O (PRESENTLY NOT KNOWN
         TO THE PETITIONER) DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA
         4. THE BRANCH MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, HARNAUT,
         NALANDA
         5. THE TREASURY OFFICER NALANDA AT BIHARSHARIF
         6. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER HILSA, NALANDA
         7. THE DEPUTY TREASURY OFFICER HILSA, NALANDA
                                              -----------

For the Petitioner:- Mr. Dinu Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv.

For the Union of India:- Mr. Gopesh Kumar, C.G.C.
For the State:- J.C. to S.C.-10

————-

2. 6.12.2010 At the outset learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that he does not seriously press the

writ petition in personal capacity against the District

Magistrate but only against the office concerned.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order

dated 30.9.2009 passed by the District Magistrate,

Nalanda stopping payment of his Freedom Fighter

Pension vide P.P.O. No. 31188.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the order suffers from complete non application of

mind and the proceedings have been initiated at the

behest of a busy body. The petitioner was sanctioned

Freedom Fighter Pension in 1998 after due enquiry
2

and continued to receive the same till issuance of the

impugned order. It is further pointed out that the

allegations and enquiry as discussed in the impugned

order appears to be related to Pension Payment Order

No. 31188.

Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to

the pleadings in Paragraph-10 of the writ application

to submit that the pension payment order number of

the petitioner is MHAFF-9804703. He has nothing to

do with Pension Payment Order No. 31188.

Unfortunately, the petitioner has not

annexed his original Pension Payment Order to the

writ petition to enable the Court to satisfy itself what

is the correct Pension Payment Order number. If the

impugned order dated 30.9.2009 refers to another

Pension Payment Order then that of the petitioner, it

may have a vital bearing on the impugned order.

Let the petitioner appear before the District

Magistrate along with his original Pension Payment

Order number. The District Magistrate shall verify the

correct Pension Payment Order number of the

petitioner. If it is not 31188, the impugned order

dated 30.9.2009 obviously cannot be an impediment

or justification for withholding of the Freedom Fighter

Pension Payment of the petitioner.

3

If the Pension Payment Order of the

petitioner is 31188, in view of the statement made in

Paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit of the Union of

India that it had already sought details from the

District Magistrate, Nalanda, the writ petition shall

stand disposed in the aforesaid terms of the statement

made by the Union of India when the enquiry is

expected to be concluded expeditiously.

The writ application stands disposed with

the aforesaid directions.

P. Kumar                                                ( Navin Sinha, J.)