Disposed

Paruchuri Janardhana Rao v. Government of India, Rep. by its Under Secretary to

Telangana HC17 Oct 2014WP/21141/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a government order suspending a freedom fighter's pension. The petitioner participated in the freedom movement and had his pension sanctioned in 2004. It was suspended in 2007 due to a complaint. The court disposed of the petition keeping the matter open for inquiry while the interim order continued.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of keeping it open for the respondent to enquire and pass orders; interim order continued.

Paruchuri Janardhana Rao Vs Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.21141 of 2008

¶3

Between:

¶4

Paruchuri Janardhana Rao

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

AND

¶7

1. Government of India, rep. by its Under Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, 1^st Floor, Loknayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi – 110 003, and others.

¶8

RESPONDENTS

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the action of the 1^st respondent in issuing Lr.No.112/457/93-FF(HC), dated 13.02.2007, suspending the freedom fighters pension sanctioned in favour of the petitioner vide orders dated 5.03.2004.

¶11

2. Heard Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Narayana Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General for 1^st respondent-Union of India, apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶12

3. According to the petitioner, he is a resident of Rayannapeta Village, Bonakal Mandal, Khammam District and he participated in the freedom movement and fought against the Nizam Government during the period 1947-1948. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of freedom fighters pension in the year 1993 under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, and his application was registered vide file No.112/457/93-FF(HC) (A), dated 5.03.2004 and freedom fighters pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner with effect from 9.01.2004. The petitioner received the impugned letter bearing No.112/457/93-FF(HC), dated 13.02.2007 of the 1^st respondent, suspending the pension granted on 5.03.2004 on the ground that one Sri B. Maheswar Rao made an application against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶13

4. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 26.09.2008 and granted interim order on 15.04.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.27632 of 2008. The said interim order is still continuing. Despite service of notice, no counter

¶14

affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

¶15

5. As evident from the impugned order dated 12.02.2007, the 1^st respondent suspended the freedom fighters pension granted earlier in favour of the petitioner, pending final decision. Keeping in view the nature of controversy and the subsistence of interim orders ever since 2008, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition, keeping it open to the 1^st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the proposed action, after holding enquiry.

¶16

6. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of, keeping it open for the 1^st respondent-Union of India to enquire into the matter and pass appropriate orders on the proposed action after giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is needless to observe that the interim order granted on 15.04.2009 shall continue to operate, pending decision by the 1^st respondent. No order as to costs.

¶17

_______________________ JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.

¶18

17^th October, 2014 Js.

Paruchuri Janardhana Rao v. Government of India, Rep. by its Under Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paruchuri Janardhana Rao v. Government of India, Rep. by its Under Secretary to

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

Habibullah Aarif Vs The Chief Manager Power Grid Corporation Steel Plant

Smt.Dasari Sujata Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., (a Govt of India

Kanakatala Rama Devi Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

K.Rangappa, S/o. Nagappa, Vs The Government of Telangana

J. Sriramulu, Vs the Government of Telangana

Bandlamudi Narasimha Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its Secretary