Dismissed

Kola Narsimha Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, v. The Government of India

Telangana HC16 Sept 2013WP/35504/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to Freedom Fighters' Pension. The court held that the petitioner failed to provide clear evidence linking his 1948 imprisonment to the Hyderabad Liberation Movement.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for lack of evidence supporting the claim that the petitioner's imprisonment was connected to the Hyderabad Liberation Movement.

Kola Narsimha Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.35504 of 2012

¶3

Dated 1 6 th September, 2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Kola Narsimha Rao

¶6

…Petitioner and

¶7

The Government of India, rep.by its Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, II Floor, NDCCII, Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110 001 and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.Satyam Reddy

¶10

For Mrs.K.V.Rajasree Counsel for respondent No.1: Mrs.S.Nanda Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4: AGP for Revenue

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 19.09.2012, of respondent No.1. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant Freedom Fighters’ Pension to him from the year 1984 with interest at the rate of 18% on arrears till the date of payment and for payment of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for denying pension and causing mental agony.

¶14

The petitioner claims to be a freedom fighter having participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement. He has been fighting his cause from the year 1997 and this writ petition is fourth in succession since then. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he was lodged in the Central Prison, Vellore for a period of six months and three days from 15.06.1948 to 18.12.1948 in connection with Hyderabad Liberation Movement. In his previous writ petition i.e., W.P.No.24338 of 2010, this Court has directed respondent No.1 to re-consider the petitioner’s claim in the light of letter, dated 17.09.1990, addressed by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu which shows that the petitioner remained imprisoned from 1946 to 1948. Consequent on the said direction, respondent No.1 reconsidered the petitioner’s claim and rejected the same for the following reasons:

¶15

“(a) Shri Rao was lodged in Central Prison, Vellore-632002 with effect from 15.06.1948 to 18.12.1948 i.e., for a period of 6 months and 3 days; (b) He was sentenced by the District Magistrate, Chittoor under Sec.2(1)a of the M.M.of Public Order Act, 1947; (c) India became independent on 15^th August, 1947; Chittoor was part of Madras Presidency and was never part of Nizam State of Hyderabad; (d) Chittoor was part of independent India when Sri Rao was admitted to jail after sentence by the District Magistrate, Chittoor; it is highly unlikely that any person would have been taken into preventive custody, and/or sentenced and jailed in June 1948 by the District Magistrate, Chittoor being part of independent India for his participation in freedom struggle/Hyderabad Liberation Movement (HLM); (e) Further, HLM came to an end after Police Action on 12.12.1357 Fasli (16.09.1948 A.D.), and all the political prisoners during HLM were released; but Shri Rao was not so released, and instead transferred to Camp Jail, Cuddalore as per Inspector General’s Order No.1393/Dc/48 dated 29.11.1948 much after Police Action as per the Extract of Register enclosed with the letter dated 17.09.1990;”

¶16

Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, stated that the fact that the petitioner is lodged in Central Prison, Vellore in pursuance of the sentence given by the District Magistrate, Chittoor under Section 2(1) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) is not in dispute and that the only fact which is not supported by the direct evidence is that the said sentence is in connection with his activities carried on against the Nizam State of Hyderabad. He further submitted that it is a well known fact that many people have conducted camps against the Nizam Government outside the State of Nizam and that the petitioner is one such activist who has led a camp and in connection therewith, he was sentenced under the Act by the Court of District Magistrate, Chittoor and the petitioner was sentenced in Central Prison, Vellore from 15.06.1948 to 18.12.1948.

¶17

A person is entitled to the Freedom Fighters’ Pension as per the Government of India policy, if he is able to

¶18

prove that he had participated in the freedom struggle, which included the Hyderabad Liberation Movement and suffered imprisonment in connection therewith. Mere proof of imprisonment without further proving that such imprisonment is in connection with or as a consequence of participation in the freedom movement, would not entitle a person to claim Freedom Fighters’ Pension. It may be quite probable that the petitioner is one among many activists who led the movements against the erstwhile Nizam. However, his claim for pension cannot be allowed based on such probabilities in the absence of clear evidence in support of his claim.

¶19

The various doubts raised by respondent No.1 as re-produced hereinbefore cannot be termed as baseless or irrational. The learned Senior Counsel while conceding that there is no material to directly support the claim of the petitioner that his imprisonment between 15.06.1948 to 18.12.1948 is in connection with the Hyderabad Liberation Movement, he is unable to explain as to why the petitioner was not released immediately after Police Action resulting in dethroning of Nizam and merging the Hyderabad State in the Union of India on 16.09.1948. Even according to the petitioner, he was detained in Vellore Central Prison upto 18.12.1948, when the Police Action ended on 16.09.1948. This question remained unanswered by the petitioner.

¶20

In my opinion, respondent No.1 has rejected the petitioner’s claim for pension on tenable grounds and this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot reverse the decision of respondent No.1 on mere probabilities, in the absence of proof.

¶21

For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶22

As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.PM.P.No.45107 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶23

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶24

16^th September, 2013 VGB

Kola Narsimha Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kola Narsimha Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, v. The Government of India

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

Gorla Sailaja, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

N. Venkata Ramana Reddy. Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh.

D. Srinivas, Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Kommineni Venkateswara Rao S/o Devendra Rao, Vs The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam.

Smt.Racherla Gouri Vs The Tahsildar

Khaja Faheemuddin S/o Khaja Kareemuddin, Vs The Regional passport officer