Allowed

R.Prabhakar Reddy v. Union of India

Telangana HC23 Sept 2014WP/18146/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, Justice Seshasai allowed the petition on behalf of the deceased petitioner's legal heir, setting aside the Union of India's rejection order. The Court directed the respondents to grant the freedom fighters pension within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of rejection set aside; respondents directed to sanction and pay freedom fighters pension within three months.

R.Prabhakar Reddy Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

W.P.No.18146 of 2005

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assails the proceedings No.52/CC/28/2005-FF(HC) dated 1.8.2005 issued by the 1^st respondent-Union of India, rejecting the claim of the 1^st petitioner herein for grant of freedom fighters’ pension.

¶5

2. The 1^st petitioner herein claims to have participated in the freedom struggle against the then Nizam Government for merger of Hyderabad State in the Indian Union. He submitted an application to the 1^st respondent-Union of India under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 for grant of freedom fighters pension in his favour on 13.3.1992 through the 2^nd respondent-State Government. The 2^nd respondent by way of Memo bearing No.25261/FFII/A2/92-1 dated 5.5.1992 issued directions to the District Collector, Nalgonda to conduct enquiry basing on the documents submitted by the 1^st petitioner and the District Collector, Nalgonda vide letter No.C5/26182/92 dated 10.6.1993 sent a report to the 2^nd respondent and subsequently, the 2^nd respondent-State Government, by way of letter No.54526/FF.II/A2/94-2 dated 7.3.1996, recommended the case of the 1^st petitioner for grant of pension. The 1^st petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.3014 of 2005 and this Court by way of order dated 11.3.2005 directed consideration of petitioner’s case. The 1^st respondent, by way of an order dated 24.3.2005, rejected the claim of the 1^st petitioner and subsequently by way of another order dated 1.8.2005 reiterated the same. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection dated 1.8.2005, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶6

3. Pending the writ petition, the 1^st petitioner passed away and by

¶7

virtue of an order dated 9.9.2004 in W.P.M.P.No.32417 of 2014 the 2^nd petitioner herein who is no other than the wife of 1^st petitioner has been permitted to come on record as the legal heir of the 1^st petitioner.

¶8

4. This Court issued rule nisi as long back as on 18.8.2005. Unfortunately, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of 1^st respondent-Union of India either in the direction of denying the averments made in the writ affidavit or in the direction of justifying the impugned action.

¶9

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned action, which culminated in the order of rejection resorted to by the 1^st respondent is highly illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the very spirit and object of Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The reasons assigned by the 1^st respondent for rejecting the claim of the 1^st petitioner are neither sustainable nor tenable. It is further submitted that in respect of the persons similarly situated namely, S/Sri Lingala Ramakrishna Reddy, M.Kista Reddy, M.Mohan Reddy and K.Indrasena Reddy who are also shown in the same detention order at Serial Nos.25, 55, 57 and 70 have been granted freedom fighters pension. The reason shown by the 1^st respondent that the proceedings showing the orders of detention do not bear the signature of Director General of Police is incorrect. In support of his submissions and contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgments of this Court in K. Raja Gopal Rao v. Union of India (UOI), rep. by its Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division^[1] , Panjala Rajaiah v. Government of India^[2] and orders of this Court in W.P.No.26115 of 2005 dated 24.3.2014 and W.P.No.2439 of 2007 dated 12.6.2014.

¶10

6. Per contra, it is contended by the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for 1^st respondent-Union of India that the impugned

¶11

orders are justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and there is neither illegality nor irregularity in the impugned orders of rejection and in the absence of the same, the present writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶12

7. In the above background, now the issue this Court is called upon to answer is whether the impugned orders of rejection passed by the 1^st respondent is sustainable and tenable and whether the petitioner is entitled for freedom fighters pension under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.

¶13

8. The Union of India, with a laudable and sacred object of safeguarding the evening lives of freedom fighters from the onslaught of the financial constraints, which they are exposed to because of the sacrifices made by them during freedom struggle at the cost of their health, wealth and young age without anticipating and expecting anything in reciprocation, introduced the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The benefit given under the said scheme in favour of freedom fighters is a right conferred on them, but it is neither a charity nor a gratis. Therefore, the authorities entrusted with the duty of scrutinizing and dealing with the claims of freedom fighters are required to address the claims in a sympathetic manner and with a pragmatic approach. The present case is required to be examined in the light of the above aspects. In the instant case, the State Government, after undertaking the ground verification, submitted its verification report to the Union of India vide letter No.54526/FF.II/A2/94-2 dated 7.3.1996, recommending the case of the petitioner herein for grant of freedom fighters pension. A perusal of the said verification report makes it abundantly clear that the original Urdu version of the arrest warrant produced by the petitioner herein was sent to Translation department and only after receipt of translation and after verifying the name of the applicant at serial No.10 in the list of 98 persons and only after coming to a conclusion that the petitioner in order to evade the arrest, went

¶14

underground and only after taking into consideration the certificate issued by the Member of Legislative Assembly, certifying the genuineness of the petitioner, the State Government recommended the case of the petitioner for grant of pension. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the 1^st respondent in the impugned order of rejection cannot stand for judicial scrutiny. The reason that the petitioner failed to furnish the requisite and acceptable supporting evidence in support of his claimed sufferings is highly objectionable. Having called for the report from the State Government and having received the verification report from the State Government, this Court finds absolutely no justification on the part of the 1^st respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner herein.

¶15

9. In this connection, it may be appropriate to refer to the order of this Court in W.P.No.21159 of 2005 dated 21.3.2006, wherein this Court at paragraph 8 held as under:

¶16

“A reading of paragraphs 6 and 10 together makes it abundantly clear that Government of India is required to scrutinize the application for FFP only with reference to verification and entitlement report provided that the applicant is found eligible for such grant. The report/recommendation of the State Government is given utmost importance in the scheme. The report, therefore, cannot be rejected by the Central Government on the ground that the claim is doubtful in spite of the report of the State Government. This Court is not able to agree with the submission of the learned Central Government Standing Counsel that the recommendation of the State Government is not binding on the Central Government. A certified copy of the unreported judgment of the High Court of Patna in Kishore Singh v. Union of India (C.W.J.C. No.8665 of 1997 dated 8.1.1999) is not placed before this Court. On plain reading of paragraph 10, this Court is convinced that the report of the State Government does not only give right to the applicant for being considered for grant of FFP but also in certain cases final and binding”.

¶17

10. It is yet another contention of the petitioner herein that in respect of the persons standing at serial Nos.25, 55, 57 and 70 in the same detention order, the respondent authorities did not raise the present

¶18

objections. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel that the cases of the persons standing at Serial Nos.51 and 70 were rejected on some other grounds and questioning the said rejection orders, W.P.Nos.2539 and 2611 of 2007 were filed before this Court and the same were allowed and copies of the said orders have been placed on record by the learned counsel for petitioner. A perusal of the said orders shows that the claims of the petitioners in the said writ petitions were rejected on different grounds and this Court allowed the said writ petitions while turning down the objections raised.

¶19

11. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in Kamalabai Sinkar v. State of Maharashtra^[3] , Gudial Singh v. Union of India^[4] and Bommakanti Venkavva v. Union of India^[5] , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court categorically held that the standard of proof required for considering the aspect of participation in the freedom movement should be on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, but not on the touchstone of test of probability beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that the claims of freedom fighters are required to be dealt with sympathetically and that if the material/documents produced are otherwise convincing, the Government in appropriate cases may not insist for strict compliance of all the requirements stated in the scheme. In view of these reasons, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to hold that the impugned order of rejection passed by the 1^st respondent is highly arbitrary and preposterous and liable to be set aside.

¶20

12. For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in the above referred judgments, this writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order of rejection passed by the 1^st respondent-Union of India vide proceedings No.52/CC/28/2005-FF(HC) dated 1.8.2005 and the respondents are

¶21

directed to sanction and pay the freedom fighters pension to the petitioner herein and the said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

______________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶23

Date: 23.9.2014 DA

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶25

W.P.No.18146 of 2005

¶26

.9.2014

¶27

¶28