Union of India (UOI) vs Thakurendra Nath Roy

Mukul Gopal Mukherji, J.—There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. By consent of the parties the appeal is treated as on the day''s list and is taken up for hearing.

This is an appeal preferred by the Union of India impugning a decision of the learned Single Judge dated March 29, 1994, passed in Matter No. 1941 of 1993 whereby the learned Single Judge directed the State Respondents to recommend the case of the writ Petitioner to the Central Government for sanction of freedom fighters'' pension to the writ Petitioner and directed further that the writ Petitioner would be entitled to pension only from January 1993. The case of the Petitioner was directed to be recommended by the State Government within three weeks from the date of the communication of the order and the pension was directed to be released to the Petitioner with arrears from January 1993.

Mr. Ghosal appearing for the Appellant Union of India contended before us that, according to the scheme for providing pension to the freedom fighters and their families, the State Government is definitely a recommendatory, authority, and on the basis of that recommendation, the Central Government is to take a final decision in accordance with law. A Division Bench of our High Court has already clarified the position that, despite the recommendation of the State Government, the Government of India was free to come to an independent decision of its own and there is no hard and fast rule that just because the State Government has recommended the case, the Government of India is bound to accept the same as final. It is also a settled principle of law that when a particular authority has been vested with the jurisdiction to take a decision on the basis of another recommendatory authority, the decision-making authority must apply its own mind and come to a judgment of its own, keeping in view the recommendation of the recommendatory authority. The decision-making authority should not substitute its own judgment for the recommendation of the recommendatory authority itself.

In the present case, however, the recommendatory authority, i.e. the State Government, was given a mandate by the learned Single Judge to make the recommendation within a time-bound schedule. The State Government indeed may not be left with any choice but to carry out the Court''s order and give its recommendation. After the lapse of so many months we do not want to revert back the case to the State Government authorities for a fresh recommendation in accordance with law but leave it to the appropriate Central Government authorities including the Respondent No. 4 of the Government of India to take their decision in accordance with law independently, keeping in view the recommendations of the State Government Which must be done within a period of two months from� the date of the communication of this order. Mr. Ghosal and Mrs. Chatterjee, who appear for the Union of India, are directed to communicate this order to the appropriate authorities to communicate this order to the appropriate authorities including the Respondent No. 4 of the Central Government of India or Union of India within a period of 10 days from date.

With the above modification of the trial Judge''s order, the appeal as well as the application for stay stand disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs.

All parties concerned are to act on a signed Xerox copy of this judgment and order on the usual undertaking.

Mitra, J.

I agree