Allowed

Panthagani Samuel, v. The Under Secretary/Deputy Secretary to Government of

Telangana HC18 Jan 2010WP/17502/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a mandate to grant him a pension under the Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980, after his claim was arbitrarily rejected despite evidence of freedom struggle participation.

What did the court decide?

Determination of the petitioner's case as per available records within 8 weeks for grant of Freedom Fighters' Pension.

Panthagani Samuel, Vs The Under… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶2

W.P. No. 17502 of 2005

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents to sanction and pay the petitioner’s pension under the Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980, setting aside the letter No. S2/CC/S4/06-FF (HC-C) dated 27.8.2009 issued by 1^st respondent as arbitrary and illegal.

¶5

It appears, the petitioner had applied for pension under the Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme to the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, way-back in the year 1984. By letter No.112/1918/84 F.F.S.Z.(Hyd), the Deputy Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs asked the petitioner to send particulars as per the proforma enclosed therewith. Thus, the petitioner submitted application in the prescribed proforma on 3.4.1984. On 26.7.1993, a letter from the screening committee asking the petitioner to go over with supporting material to the venue of their sitting on 12.8.1993 at Gandhi Mandir, Sulthan Bazar, Hyderabad was received. Accordingly the petitioner appeared before the screening committee on 12.8.1993 along with supporting documents. The petitioner also submitted A.B.C.D. Forms, affidavit attested by Notary, Bank Account number Xerox copy and pension payment order to the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, on 14.5.1997. On 7.8.1994, the District Collector, Warangal addressed a letter Rc.No.C5/10356/99, along with 12 enclosures, to the Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, also enclosing the State Government’s reference forwarding list of applications recommended by the HSS Committee for verification report of R.D.O. in respect of the petitioner, whose name stood at serial number 759.

¶6

On 25.2.1999, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, requesting that action may be taken on his application. On 31.3.2001, the District Collector, Warangal again resubmitted verification to the Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (F.F.I) Department, recommending the claim of the petitioner for sanction of F.F. Pension under the Central Government Scheme. On 20.8.2001, the Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department addressed Lr.No.22323/F.F.I/A1/2001-1 to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, recommending the petitioner’s case for grant of F.F. Pension. Thereafter, the petitioner also made representations on 13.9.2001 and 16.9.2003 to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, to take immediate steps for sanction of F.F. Pension. Since there was no response, on 26.5.2003 the petitioner enquired in the office of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Freedom Fighters Division, Loknayak Bhavan, New Delhi regarding the stage of his application. On 25.8.2004 the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs addressed Lr.No.F.No.112/2/2003 F.F.(HC) Misc (A) to re-examine the case of the petitioner and send his claim, if found eligible. On 10.12.2004, the petitioner again submitted representation to the Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, F.F. Division, New Delhi, but there was no response. Therefore, this writ petition.

¶7

It appears, during the pendency of the writ petition, proceedings dated 27.8.2009 were issued rejecting the case of the petitioner on the very same grounds.

¶8

The respondents have filed their counter and additional counter, reiterating the stand that the petitioner has not submitted all the certificates, as required, along with the application form and there was no specific mention as to the nature of suffering

¶9

undergone by him and he did not mention as to whether he was a proclaimed offender or one on whom an award for arrest or on head was announced or one for whom detention order was issued but not served and, therefore, the case of the petitioner was rejected.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that since no records were available, the petitioner was asked to submit affidavits from two of the freedom fighters who had undergone two years’ imprisonment and who were in-charge of the border camps and the petitioner had accordingly submitted those affidavits. Therefore, the question of again furnishing some more information or that whether he was a proclaimed offender or not does not arise.

¶11

Whereas, learned Government Pleader submitted that at least the State Government should have given a certificate that records were not available to the effect that the petitioner was either a proclaimed offender or one against whom arrest warrant was issued or he was a person against whom warrant was issued but he could not be arrested etc. and in the absence of the same the case of the petitioner could not be considered.

¶12

I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record.

¶13

From the very application made by the petitioner it is clear that he joined Hyderabad Congress in the year 1945 and in response to the call given by the State Congress to launch struggle against the Nizam Government in 1947, he had conducted public meetings in Thammadpalli, Kunoor, Garrnepalli, Mamnoor, Warangal Railway Station, Nekkonda Railway Station, Yerrupalem Railway Station and hoisted Congress flags and instigated the villagers to cut

¶14

the toddy, sandhi trees and not to cooperate with the Government by refusing payment of land revenue and excise rentals. Further, the police came to their village to arrest him and he escaped from the village and went to Polampalli border camp. He was given training in the use of firearms by the Camp In- charge. He had participated in the raids on Razakars Camp at Yerrupalem, cut the Telephone wires between Yerrupalem and Madhira Railway Stations, counter attacked the Razakars who came to Rayapatnam and China Mandava villages. There was exchange of fire between Razakars and them. Some of them were badly wounded and treated at Vijayawada. They had burnt the R.T.C. Bus at Hanamkonda route and also cut the telephone wires near Gundrathimadugu Railway Station. Thus, he had participated in the freedom struggle from August 1947 to September 1948. To this effect, T. Hanmanth Rao, who is said to be the in-charge of Polampalli Border Camp gave a certificate stating that the petitioner is a bona fide activist of his camp and he was given training in arms and he had actively worked in facing the Razakar Goondaism. A similar certificate was also issued by another colleague freedom fighter and after verification of these certificates and other evidence, the Collector, Warangal District had recommended the case of the petitioner. Though the Central Government had received the proposals, it had slept over the matter for more than a decade and after several reminders, rejected the case of the petitioner, without any reason.

¶15

Strictly speaking, there was no necessity of producing any evidence by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that no record is available. Therefore, as required under the procedure, he had submitted the certificates issued by two of his colleague freedom fighters. Further, it is interesting to notice that in the very application form, the petitioner had stated that the police came to his village to arrest him and he escaped from the village and reached the border camp at Polampalli and he was given training in dealing with arms and

¶16

that he had also fought against the Razakars etc. In view of the certificates given by two of his colleague freedom fighters and the recommendation made by the District Collector after considering the material available with him, it can be held beyond any reasonable doubt that the petitioner had participated in the freedom struggle. May be, he did not say that he was a proclaimed offender, but he categorically stated that the police came to his village and wanted to arrest him and he escaped from the village and joined the border camp and from there he was fighting against the Nizam Rule. Under those circumstances, there is no necessity to produce any further evidence or to declare that he was a proclaimed offender etc.

¶17

Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has satisfied all the requirements of a freedom fighter as per the scheme evolved by the Central Government and, thus, there is no necessity of further examining the case.

¶18

Therefore, 1^st respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner as per the record available as of today, for the purpose of granting Freedom Fighters’ Pension under the ‘Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980’ ignoring the unreasonable stand taken earlier, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, this will not preclude 1^st respondent from getting a report from the State Government as to ‘Nonavailability of record” in respect of the petitioner as to issue of warrant for arrest/proclaimed offender etc.

¶19

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

¶20

JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 18-1-2010.

¶21

MVB.

Panthagani Samuel, v. The Under Secretary/Deputy Secretary to Government of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panthagani Samuel, v. The Under Secretary/Deputy Secretary to Government of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lingala Venkateswara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Malepati Leelavathamma Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Kollipara Pushpalata, Vs the Government of A.P.

P.Bharati, Vs The M.D.

R.Venkataramana, Vs The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl. Labour Court

Sub-Divisional Officer, Telecommunications, Vs C. Pratap Reddy (Dismissed)