Dismissed

Union of India, v. Yelmareddy Suryamma

Telangana HC14 Aug 2012WA/315/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court applied the principle from KAUSHALAYA DEVI to deny retrospective pension benefits. When pension claims rely on secondary evidence rather than primary records, benefits accrue only from the date of the grant order, not the application date. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Authorised authorities to make pension payment from 03.02.2010 (date of earlier order) instead of date of application.

Union of India, Vs Yelmareddy Suryamma — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶6

WRIT APPEAL No.315 of 2012

BETWEEN

Union of India.

…APPELLANT

AND

Yelmareddy Suryamma and another.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

Counsel for the Appellant: MR. PONNAM ASHOK GOUD ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶14

Counsel for the Respondents: MR. JAGADEESHWAR REDDY – R1 GP FOR REVENUE – R2

¶15

The Court made the following:

¶16

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose, the Acting Chief Justice)

¶17

This appeal is by the Union of India against the order dated 19.09.2011 passed by the Hon’ble single Judge in WP.No.22127 of 2011 remitting the matter for re-examination with the Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division and to consider whether the doubt entertained by it as to the eligibility

¶18

of the petitioner (through here late husband) for the purpose of grant of freedom fighters pension is fair and reasonable or not and also to reconsider whether the petitioner can be granted pension from the date of application instead of 03.02.2010.

¶19

2. After hearing both sides, We are of the view that the decision of the [1] Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA v. KAUSHALAYA DEV I squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶20

3. In the counter affidavit, the appellant, Union of India, had stated in para 10 that petitioner’s late husband has not produced any primary or secondary evidence, as prescribed under the scheme to substantiate his claim for underground sufferings. The State Government had recommended the claim on the basis of the certificate given by other freedom fighters and not based on any official records.

¶21

4. The aforesaid averment, in the counter affidavit of the appellant, is not contraverted by the respondent/writ petitioner and even during the hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner has not disputed the said submission. The decision in KAUSHALAYA DEVI’s case (1 supra) was cited before the Hon’ble single Judge and noticed in para 13 of the order and in terms of the said decision, when the claim is based on secondary nature of evidence such as oral statement of some other detenue and not on primary evidence such as jail records, pension will be granted only from the date of order of granting pension and not from the date of application.

¶22

5. In our opinion, therefore, there was no doubt with regard to the secondary nature of evidence produced on behalf of the writ petitioner and such order passed by the appellant authorities granting freedom fighters family pension to the writ petitioner through the proceedings dated 19.05.2010 with effect from 03.02.2010 (the date on which the Court passed orders in the earlier WP.No.481 of 2010) cannot be said to be contrary to the aforesaid

¶23

decision in KAUSHALAYA DEVI’s case

¶24

(1 supra).

¶25

6. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order of the Hon’ble single Judge impugned herein is required to be modified and we direct the authorities to go on making the payment from the date of order i.e. 03.02.2010 and not from the date of application made by the writ petitioner.

¶26

The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to the disposal of the writ appeal, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

_________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 14, 2012 DSK

¶28

[1] (2007) 9 SCC 525

Union of India, v. Yelmareddy Suryamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India, v. Yelmareddy Suryamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suneel Kumar Appaji Vs The Union of India., rep.by the Secretary to the

Raghunandan Yadav Vs The Principal Secretary to the Government

Sri Radha Kanth Mutt, Balasahi, Vs Smt. Chitra Ramachandran

Paladugula Kumaraswamy Vs G. Venugopal Rao

M.Eswara Reddy Vs v.Mallikarjuna

Shabbir Ali Khan Vs Joint Collector (J)