Judgment :- 1. This contempt is by a person who had claimed freedom fighter’s pension under the State Government Scheme and who had been so granted the pension, on the claim of the complainant being satisfied, by the Government and having been given such pension as per the order dated 20.05.1992. The pension, though was granted 20.05.1992, was with effect from 22.11.1980 at the rates that prevailed at the relevant point of time. 2. It appears that the State Government reviewed the entire scenario of granting freedom fighters pension and having found that there were some discrepancies in the claims made by the persons claiming as freedom fighters, the Government wanted to review the situation and had issued notices to all persons drawing freedom fighter’s pension to again appear before the authority and to produce proof afresh of their claims or version. 3. It appears that the complainant had appeared before the Deputy Commissioner of the District and had asserted her claim for pension and had further indicated that all the supporting documents had already been submitted. However, the Deputy Commissioner appears to have recommended to the Government for cancellation of pension to the complainant. The Government cancelled the pension after such recommendation as per the order dated 01.04.2000. After the complainant’s efforts to seek restoration of pension before the government failed, the order was challenged by the complainant by filing W.P.No.1205/2007. 4. This writ petition, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, though was allowed by quashing the cancellation of pension, this Court, nevertheless, directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension in accordance with the scheme within a period of four months, if not, earlier as per the order dated 24.03,2008 passed in the writ petition. 5. It is complaining of the non-compliance of the direction issued as per this order, the present contempt petition. 6. 5. It is complaining of the non-compliance of the direction issued as per this order, the present contempt petition. 6. It appears that though the Government held an enquiry as per the directions and had issued notice to the complainant to attend the enquiry personally, which the complainant attended on 16.09.2008 before the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, and gave her statement, even thereafter the orders having not been passed for a considerable length of time and the complainant being without pension, presented the contempt petition, and notice had been issued on the contempt petition to the respondents on 03.04.2009. 7. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit before this Court on 29.05.2009, and it is stated, inter alia, in the affidavit, that the case of the complainant had been reexamined as per the direction of this Court but due to administrative reasons, the order could not be passed promptly and that the order has came to be passed on 22.05.2009, copy of which is produced as Annexure-R1 to the affidavit, rejecting the claim for the freedom fighter’s pension by the complainant for the reason that the statement given by the complainant before the Deputy Secretary was to the effect that she had undergone one month’s jail suffering whereas the certificate issued by the co-prisoner had indicated that she was a co-prisoner with them from 14.12.1942 to 23.03.1943 i.e., for a period of more than three months and this having given rise to suspicion, the authorities would affirm the earlier action of cancellation of pension in favour of the complainant and the claim for freedom fighter’s pension stands rejected. 8. Shri H.M.Dharigond, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the order passed is not a bona fide order; that no order was passed promptly by the Government after the Deputy Secretary heard the matter and recorded the statement; that the certificate and the statement both did confirm that the complainant had undergone imprisonment in connection with the freedom struggle; that there is, absolutely, no justification in passing the order and the order is passed only after the notice was issued in contempt jurisdiction just to come up with an answer for compliance and that the order is not either a bona fide exercise of power or a proper order. 9. 9. Shri K.B.Adhyapak, learned counsel appearing for the accused – respondents, on the other hand, submits that the respondents have obeyed the directions issued by this Court, and therefore, there is no further cause in contempt jurisdiction and that the quality of the order cannot be examined in contempt jurisdiction. 10. Though we are inclined to accept the submission of the learned Government Advocate that it is not very appropriate for us to examine the quality of the order passed by an authority in contempt jurisdiction, and the question is confined as to whether direction of this Court has been complied or not, we must express our considerable displeasure and disapproval of the manner in which the State Government functions in the matter of examining the claims of grant of freedom fighter’s pension and the manner of disposal of those applications. 11. In this very case, we are not satisfied at all that the order, appended as AnnexureR1 to the counter affidavit, is either proper or bona fide one. We say so for the reason that, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant, it is not only passed in a haste only after receiving of the notice in contempt petition, but the respondents appear to be searching for one flimsy ground or the other to reject the claim rather than to advance the object of the scheme and to accord freedom fighter’s pension to a freedom fighter in an honourable manner. 12. We find it is more disgraceful to harass and humiliate the freedom fighters in this manner than conferring on them any ‘samman’ or giving them any sustenance. 13. A lady of 80 years age, who had undergone imprisonment more than 50 years back, cannot be expected to remember the precise duration of her imprisonment, at her age and in her condition, though it is not impossible for many elderly people to have sharp memories. 14. The Verification should be oriented as to whether the pension can be extended on the available material and not as to whether it can be rejected, which only defeats the object of the scheme. Both the claim of the complainant and the certificate issued by the co-prisoner did confirm with the factum of having undergone imprisonment. In this state of affairs, the Government should have gracefully restored the pension but that is not the order. 15. Both the claim of the complainant and the certificate issued by the co-prisoner did confirm with the factum of having undergone imprisonment. In this state of affairs, the Government should have gracefully restored the pension but that is not the order. 15. Be that as it may. As observed, earlier in this order, it may not be proper to examine the correctness or otherwise of the order in contempt jurisdiction. 16. While liberty is reserved to the complainant to independently question the validity of the order, we express our dismay about the way the State Government functions, particularly, in the matter of grant of freedom fighter’s pension, and the least we can do is to compensate the complainant for the considerable harassment and humiliation suffered by her because of these proceedings. While we close the contempt petition, we impose cost of Rs. 10,000/-on the respondents to be paid to the complainant within four weeks from today. If the cost is not paid within the stipulated time, the complainant can move for revival of the contempt petition.