According to him he is entitled to pension from 28.7.1981 when the application was filed by him.
Learned companynsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the order of the High Court.
Appellants released the pension with effect from 4th August, 1993 when the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the learned Single Judge.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order the Division Bench was moved in a Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed.
A special leave petition was also filed before this Court which was rejected as barred by time.
The question that arose was the date from which the respondent was entitled to pension.
In any event, the benefit of doubt was granted to the respondent and in line with the order passed by the High Court earlier pension was granted from the date of order i.e. 4th August, 1993.
Reference was made to the decision of this Court in M.L. Bhandari v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 2127.
Definite material was number placed by the State Government and only he was given benefit of doubt and because of the order of the High Court pension was granted to him.
The application was rejected by the Central Government on 29.1.1993.
Stand of the present appellants was that since the claim of the respondent companyld number be decided till 1993 because of the number companyoperative attitude of the State Government regarding supply of requisite information.
A Writ Petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court questioning companyrectness of the order of the Single Judge.
The respondent claimed to be a freedom fighter and claimed freedom fighters pension.
8873 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
2259 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.
The writ petition was allowed and the present appellants were directed to release pension to the respondent.
Respondent claimed pension from the date of filing of the application.
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The application in this regard was filed on 28th July, 1981.
The High Court did number accept the stand.
Almost similar issue came up for companysideration before this Court in Union of India Anr.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent.
In support of the appeal learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the view of the High Court is clearly untenable because the question whether respondent was entitled to pension and whether he fulfilled the guidelines was under examination.
The companytroversy lies within a very narrow companypass.
