Disposed

Sayyed Dasthageer v. Union of India

Telangana HC26 Sept 2014WP/19096/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the inaction of authorities in granting a freedom fighters pension under the Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980, directing the State Government to submit a re-verification report within three months and the Union of India to decide the claim within three months thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Directed 3rd respondent to submit re-verification report within 3 months and Union of India to decide claim within 3 months thereafter.

Sayyed Dasthageer Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 19096 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the action of the respondents in not considering the applications of the petitioner dated 31.12.1997 and 27.10.2009 for grant of freedom fighters pension under the Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

¶5

Heard Sri Shaik Jilani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt K. Rajitha, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India and the learned Government Pleader for the State.

¶6

According to the petitioner, he is a freedom fighter and he fought against the Nizam Government during the year 1947-48 for merger of Hyderabad State into the Union of India. The petitioner herein claims that he made applications dated 31.12.1997 and 27.10.2009 to the Union of India for grant of freedom fighters pension under Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980. Challenging the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in sanctioning the pension in terms of the said scheme, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

¶7

This Court while issuing Rule Nisi on 06.09.2010 granted the following interim order in W.P.M.P.No.24162 of 2010:

¶8

“ Considering the fact that the petitioner’s application dated 31.12.1997 seeking grant of freedom fighters pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, is gathering dust owing to the apathy and inertia of the authorities concerned and keeping in mind the advanced age of the petitioner, there shall be a direction to the respondent No.3 to act upon the said application and take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. This exercise shall be completed forthwith and in any event not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order”.

¶9

In response to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court, a Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, stating that after receipt of the above interim order passed by this Court, the Union of India vide Letter dated 23.12.2010 requested the State Government to furnish re-verification report along with application and supporting documents in respect of the petitioner. It is further stated in the said Counter Affidavit that the claim of the petitioner herein can be considered only after receipt of the mandatory verification and recommendation report with supporting documents. No Counter Affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd

¶10

respondent/State.

¶11

The Union of India with a laudable and sacred object of safeguarding the freedom fighters from onslaught of the financial constraints, which they are exposed to, because of the sacrifices made by them during the freedom struggle for liberation of our country from the clutches and shackles of feudal and colonial forces, introduced the Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980. The benefit under the scheme, in the considered opinion of this Court, is a right given to the freedom fighters and it is neither a charity or gratis. Therefore, the authorities entrusted with the functions under the scheme are required to address the claims of the freedom fighters in an expeditious and speedy manner.

¶12

In the instant case, according to the petitioner, he made applications to the respondents on 31.12.1997 and 27.10.2009 for grant of freedom fighters pension under the said scheme. A letter bearing No. 52/CC/121/2010-FF (HC-C), dt. 23.12.2010 placed on record by the learned counsel shows that the Union of India requested the State Government to send re-verification report, applications and supporting documents for the purpose of considering the claim of the petitioner herein. Unfortunately, no counter affidavit has so far been filed by the 3^rd respondent nor any material is placed before this Court to demonstrate that any consequential action is taken at the Stage Government level. In the considered view of this Court, the said conduct on the part of the authorities is highly iniquitous and unreasonable and reprehensible. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition basing on the material made available.

¶13

For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 3^rd respondent/State Government to enquire into the matter and to send re-verification report along with required documents, as sought by the Union of India vide Letter No.52/CC/121/2010-FF(HC-C), dt. 23.12.2010, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of this Order. It is further directed that on receipt of the said re-verification report, the Union of India shall take appropriate action in the light of Swatantra Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme, 1980, with regard to the claim of the petitioner within a period of 3 months thereafter and communicate the order to the petitioner. No order as to costs.

¶14

As a sequel, the miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶15

__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶16

26th September, 2014.

¶17

eha

Sayyed Dasthageer v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyed Dasthageer v. Union 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

Sri Srinivasa Cooperative Joint Farming Society Ltd. Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Agriculture and

Smt.Ravulapati Ahalya Rani Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj and Rural

Sri Cherukuri Tarakaramakrishna Prasad Vs Sri Chennakeswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, rep by

Pathapati Sesha Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Veeraswamy Vs District Colector

Sri Veereshawara Swami Temple Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Endowments