Allowed

Vishwanadhula Raju Bai , Radha Bai v. Union of India., rep.by its Deputy Secretary,Ministry

Telangana HC15 Sept 2014WP/2715/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging the delay by State Government in processing a freedom fighter pension claim. The hold-up was deemed arbitrary. Court directed State to submit verification to Union of India within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 2 to 4 directed to send verification report to 1st Respondent within three months; 1st Respondent to finalize claim within three months thereafter.

Vishwanadhula Raju Bai , Radha Bai Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2715 0f 2010

¶3

Between:

¶4

Vishwanadhula Raju Bai @ Radha Bai,

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

AND

¶7

1. Union of India, rep. by its Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, Loknayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi, and others.

¶8

RESPONDENTS

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed, challenging the action of the 2^nd respondent-State Government in not recommending the case of the petitioner to the 1^st respondent for grant of freedom fighters pension, as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

¶11

2. Heard Sri K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Shanthi Neelam, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent-Union of India and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 2 to 4, apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶12

3. According to the petitioner, her husband participated in the freedom movement against the then Nizam Government during the years 1947-48. He worked under the command of Late Sri Amruthlal Shikla, Camp in-charge, Manala Boarder Camp, Nizamabad District, and the Nizam Government issued arrest warrant vide letter No.215/Cong/57 (Fasli), dated 4^th Teer 1357 Fasli, and for the purpose of evading the arrest he went underground for more than seven months. It is the further case of the petitioner that her husband submitted an application in the year 1980, along with required proof such as arrest warrant and certificate issued by one Sri Gaddam Thirupathi Reddy S/o. Pulla Reddy in support of his underground suffering for the period from 01.05.1357 (F) to 30.12.1358 (F) i.e., for more than six months. It is further stated that the respondent No.3 vide his letter No.C5/1027/2001, dated 25.03.2001 sent the documents to the State Government. Subsequent to the same, the 2^nd respondent State Government vide Memo No.48818/FF.II(1)/95-6, dated 27.09.2003, requested the District Collector, Karimnagar, to furnish the

¶13

specific recommendations while referring to the Government Memo dated 17.04.2001.

¶14

4. In the present writ petition it is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the said letter no further steps have been taken by the officials of the State Government. In the above said background, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶15

5. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 8.04.2010. Responding to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court, a counter affidavit in the form of reply has been filed on behalf of the Union of India, stating that the State Government has not so far sent any verification report to the 1^st respondent regarding the claim of the petitioner, as such, the claim cannot be considered as of now. There is no counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 4 either in the direction of denying the averments in the writ affidavit or in the direction of justifying the impugned action.

¶16

6. In the present writ petition, it is the specific grievance of the petitioner that even though the State Government, as long back as on 27.09.2003 vide Memo No.48818/FF.II(1)/95-6, made a request to the District Collector to furnish specific recommendations, while referring to the earlier Memo dated 17.04.2001, no further steps have been taken in the direction of redressing the grievance of the petitioner. This in the considered opinion of this Court is neither justified nor reasonable and no plausible explanation also is forthcoming as to why no further steps have been taken in the direction of redressing the grievance of the petitioner, who is in the evening of her life. This conduct on the part of respondents 2 to 4 would undoubtedly defeat the very laudable object behind the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 introduced by the Government of India.

¶17

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents 2 to 4 to send the verification report pursuant to the Memo No.48818/FF.II(1)/95-6, dated 27.09.2003 to the 1^st

¶18

respondent-Union of India, after completing all the formalities, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that after receipt of said verification report from the State Government, the 1^st respondent shall finalise the claim of the petitioner, in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶19

_______________________ JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.

¶20

15^th September, 2014 Js.

Vishwanadhula Raju Bai , Radha Bai v. Union of India., rep.by its Deputy Secretary,Ministry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwanadhula Raju Bai , Radha Bai v. Union of India., rep.by its Deputy Secretary,Ministry

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

Shabir Bhai Vs The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary

Korupolu Appala Naidu, Vs The District Collector

Mohd. Ghouse, Vs The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary

Onteru Manemma, Vs The District Collector, Warangal

Madireddy Ram Reddy Vs Madireddy laxmamma

Karakapatla Ramesh, Vs Sri I. Samuel Ananda Kumar, I.A.S.