Union Of India (Uoi) vs Babu Rao And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 125 Del

JUDGMENT

Markandeya Katju, C.J.

1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge dated 5.5.2000. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. Petitioner No. 1 in the writ petition, Babu Rao alleged in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that he had filed an application dated 4.1.1982 vide Annexure P-7 to the writ petition claiming freedom fighters pension. However, by order dated 15.11.1988, the petitioner was informed by the Central Government that the Government of India regretted its inability to consider his case in view of the fact that it had not been recommended by the Special Screening Committee set up to scrutinize such cases vide Annexure P-2.

3. Thereafter it appears that petitioner filed an affidavit dated 9.12.1993 giving details about his alleged participation in the freedom struggle vide Annexure P-3 and he submitted a formal application dated 9.12.1993 vide Annexure P-5.

4. As regards petitioner No. 2, his application had also been rejected by the Central Government by order dated 18.4.1988 by Annexure PB-2. However, he also made another application dated 7.12.1993 vide Annexure PB-6 with the relevant documents.

5. Since the petitioners were not granted the freedom fighters pension, they filed a writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 14.1.1997 and the respondents were directed to grant the pension to the petitioner.

6. The last paragraph of the judgment dated 14.1.1997 states as under:-

In view of the above the matter is also settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Duli Chand and Ors. and Mukund Lal Bhandari and Ors. Despite opportunities the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit to controvert the averments made in the petition. The petitioners are accordingly held entitled to the relief as prayed. Rule is made absolute and the respondents are directed to grant and pay pension to the petitioners under the above said scheme with effect from the date of their applications i.e. 9th December, 1993 respectively within a period of three months. The petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.

7. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application for modification of the judgment dated 14.1.1997 to the extent that they should get pension from 1982 and 1988 respectively. That application has been allowed and hence this appeal.

8. A Division Bench of this Court in Jagjit Singh Industries Ltd. v. Cont.Gen. of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks and Ors. has held following the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Brahma Datt Sharma , that once the High Court delivered a judgment, it becomes functus officio, and the High Court has no right thereafter to entertain miscellaneous applications except for correcting clerical errors. Hence, in our opinion, the application for modification of the judgment dated 14.1.1997 was not maintainable.

9. Moreover, it may be noted that the earlier application of the petitioners of 1982 and 1988 respectively had been rejected and thereafter fresh applications had been filed in 1993. The orders for grant of pension are, therefore, attributable only to the applications filed in 1993 and not to those filed in 1982 or 1988. Hence, also the impugned order dated 5.5.2000 cannot be sustained.

10. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and order dated 5.5.2000 is set aside.