Disposed

Thammisetti Venkateswarlu v. The Dy. Secretary, Freedom Fighters Division

Telangana HC14 Oct 2014WP/2642/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addressed the petitioner's writ petition concerning the inaction of authorities in sanctioning a freedom fighters pension. It directed the State Government to complete verification and report to the Union of India within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents (except Union of India) to complete verification and send report to Union of India within three months; Union of India to act thereon subsequently.

Thammisetti Venkateswarlu Vs The Dy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

W.P.No.2642 of 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The grievance precisely in the present writ petition is the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in sanctioning the freedom fighters pension as per the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.

¶5

2. Heard Sri K.Chinna Baba, leaned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Radha Krishna, learned Additional Standing Counsel, appearing for 1^st respondent-Union of India and learned Government Pleader appearing for State Government, apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶6

3. According to the petitioner, he participated in the freedom struggle for liberation of Hyderabad State during the years 1947-48 and he submitted an application to the 1^st respondent during the year 1982. The State Government vide Memo No.47081/FF.I(A2)/93-2 dated 30.9.1994 requested the District Collector, Khammam to send a report. The complaint obviously in the present writ petition is that no further action has been taken by the respondents for grant of freedom fighters pension in favour of the petitioner herein.

¶7

4. In response to the rule nisi issued by this Court, a counter affidavit is filed on behalf of Union of India, stating that the name of the petitioner can be considered as per the provisions of the scheme only after receipt of his application along with the verification report.

¶8

5. No counter affidavit has been filed so far by the State Government.

¶9

6. The Union of India, with a laudable and sacred object of

¶10

protecting and 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 and expeditious manner and with a pragmatic approach, otherwise the very purpose of introduction of such a laudable scheme would be frustrated.

¶11

7. As evident from the material on record, the petitioner herein submitted his application as long back as in the year 1982. The State Government by way of Memo dated 30.9.1994 called for report from the District Collector, Khammam. The complaint in the writ petition is that despite the same, no action has been taken in the direction of redressing the grievance of the petitioner herein. This action, in the considered opinion of this Court, is highly unreasonable and preposterous and not in consonance with the object sought to be achieved by introduction of the scheme.

¶12

8. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the Respondents 2 and 3 herein to complete the process of verification of the claim of the petitioner herein and to send verification report to the Union of India within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such a verification report is submitted within the time stipulated above, the 1^st respondent-Union of India shall take appropriate action on the same within a period of three months thereafter, as per the scheme. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

______________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶14

Date: 14.10.2014 DA

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶16

W.P.No.2642 of 2008

¶17

14.10.2014

¶18

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶21

W.P.No.2642 of 2008

¶22

Date: 14.10.2014

¶23

Between:

¶24

Thammisetti Venkateswarlu Petitioner

¶25

And

¶26

The Deputy Secretary, Freedom Fighters Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Loknayak Bhavan, New Delhi and others.

¶27

Respondents

Thammisetti Venkateswarlu v. The Dy. Secretary, Freedom Fighters Division

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thammisetti Venkateswarlu v. The Dy. Secretary, Freedom Fighters Division

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Yousuf Ali Vs Setwin represented by its Managing Director

J. Ratna Rao, Vs Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative

Bynapalli Chinna Thimmaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Seelam Laxmamma W/o Venkatarami Reddy Vs The Dy. Secretary, Freedom Fighters Division

Vasireddy Mallaiah Vs The Deputy Secretary

A.L. Sudershan Construction Company Ltd. Vs The Union of India