WP/1351/2007 of Katragadda Gundarayudu, Vs Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, on 26 December 2007

Conclusion

O R D E R:

The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus, directing therespondents to consider the application submitted by the petitioner under theprovisions of the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 forgranting Freedom Fighter’s Pension within a time bound programme,declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents as arbitrary, illegal,violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and also the provisions ofSwatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 and pass such otherfurther orders.

2. Heard Sri Madhusudhana Reddy, representing Sri A.SudershanReddy, the counsel for petitioner and Sri A.Rajasekhara Reddy, the learnedAssistant Solicitor General and the learned Government Pleader for revenue.

3. The present writ petitioner states that the petitioner is a freedomfighter fought against the Nizam Rule during 1947-48 period for the merger ofHyderabad State launched by the Hyderabad State Congress against NizamGovernment and the petitioner worked under the Camp Jaggaiahpeta Campin Krishna District under Dodda Narasiaha, Camp-in-charge. It is stated thatthe Government of India had formulated a scheme namely Swatantra SainikSamman Pension Scheme 1980 extending certain benefits to the freedomfighters to grant pension etc. In accordance with the provisions of theScheme, the petitioner submitted an application on 15.12.1997. Having received the said application, the respondent and their officials have sincepromised to consider the application in proper perspective in accordance withthe provisions of the said scheme, the petitioner had been anxiously waitingto receive a favourable communication. Further it is stated that theCommittee constituted namely the Screening Committee has examined theapplications of various freedom fighters during the years 1997, 1998 satisfiedwith their respective eligibility and recommended the applications for grant ofpension. The petitioner expecting the sanction order from the respondentsince 90% of his colleagues have received the proceedings on different datesstating that their claim cannot be admitted in view of the inconsistencies anddeficiencies indicated therein. The petitioner also anxiously waiting toreceive a communication from the respondent. Having waited sufficient time,since the petitioner could not get and reply, subsequently the petitioner hadsubmitted a detailed catena of representations bringing out the fact to theirnotice besides requesting to consider his application in proper perspectiveand in the light of the provisions of the scheme. Though the petitioner hadbeen anxiously waiting to receive any communication from the respondents,having no other alternative, the petitioner constrained to approach thisHon’ble Court though this writ petition. Further it is stated that the respondentbeing a statutory authority and a competent authority to take appropriatedecision on the application submitted by him, being a freedom fighter, oughtto have taken an appropriate decision and passed an appropriate order. Theinaction on the part of the respondents is nothing but arbitrary, besides beingcapricious and colourable exercise of power. The respondent being acompetent authority ought to have taken appropriate decision in respect ofthe persons who are freedom fighters and who lost everything during the

struggle period. The petitioner in the evening of over lives and if any delay iscaused in taking a decision it would substantially jeopardize our interest. Non-consideration of the representation submitted by me immediatelytantamount to denial of benefits, pension which cause hardship. Further it isstated that the petitioner is an aged person and suffered a lot during theFreedom Struggle and require financial assistance at this stage immediately. The respondents ought to have conducted enquiry as expeditiously aspossible. The petitioner came to know that the Screening Committee hasalso accepted his claim and recommended to the competent authority toconsider his application. The delay on the part of the respondents sincesubstantially jeopardizig his right to live, the Fundamental Right guaranteedunder Part III of the Constitution of India is also infringed. As all the attemptsmade by him to get his representations considered are proved to be futile,having no other alternative, the petitioner constrained to approach thisHon’ble court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The writ petition is resisted by respondent No.1 by filing the counter-affidavit in detail. The background facts of the case had been narrated indetail commencing from paras 4 to 20. Several of the averments madetherein are more or less genera in nature applicable to all claiming suchSwatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980. In reply to the avermentsmade in paras 1 and 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it isstated that the petitioner had not submitted any documents along with the writpetition to support of the contentions made by him. It is further averred in para22 that the relevant file No.112/4867/97-FF(HC) in respect of the petitioner’sclaim is not readily traceable on the records of this Ministry. Government ofAndhra Pradesh has been requested on 14.9.2007 (Ex.R2) to provide the copies of the application and supporting documents and all other relevantpapers. The required documents are still awaited from the Government ofAndhra Pradesh and in the absence thereof, it is not possible for thisrespondent ministry to give any comments on the contentions made in theseparas. It is further stated that all persons who took part in freedom movementin some way or the other are not eligible for Samman Pension under theSwatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980. Only specified categoryof freedom fighters who fulfill the conditions of the Scheme by furnishing theproof of claimed sufferings of the nature and in the manner specified in theScheme itself are eligible for Samman Pension and evidentially criteriaprescribed under this scheme.

5. The relief prayed for in the writ petition, as already referred to supra,is to consider the application submitted by the petitioner under the provisionsof Swatanta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 for granting FreedomFighers Pension. No doubt specific stand had been taken in the counter thatunless the whole process and all the steps are taken, the question ofconsidering the case of the petitioner would not arise.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of theconsidered opinion that the writ petition be disposed of directing the firstrespondent to consider the application of the petitioner submitted under theprovisions of Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 1980 for grantingFreedom Fighters Pension in accordance with law, within a period of eightweeks from the date of receipt of this order.

7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

26[th] December, 2007.

_________________

P.S.NARAYANA,J

PNV

Date:26 -12-2007