Allowed

Damuluri Venkateswarlu v. The Under SEcretary

Telangana HC2 Sept 2014WP/833/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed writ petitions challenging the cancellation of freedom fighters pensions. It set aside orders that cancelled the pension and directed recovery without providing notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before relying on re-verification reports.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cancellation orders of freedom fighters pension set aside. No order as to costs.

Damuluri Venkateswarlu Vs The Under… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

W.P.Nos.477, 564, 833, 847, 898 & 1332 of 2010

¶3

W.P.No.477 of 2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

1. Lagadapati Chenchaiah and another.

¶6

PETITIONERS

¶7

AND

¶8

1. The Under Secretary, Freedom Fighters Division, Ministry of Home affairs, Loknayak Bhavan, New Delhi, and others.

¶9

RESPONDENTS

¶10

COMMON ORDER:

¶11

Since the cause, which prompted the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions, is identical this Court deems it appropriate and apposite to dispose of these writ petitions by way this common order.

¶12

2. Heard Sri K. Chinna Baba, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. K. Rajitha, learned Additional Standing counsel for the Union of India and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.3 and 4, apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶13

3. According to the petitioners they are all freedom fighters and participated in the freedom struggle against the Nizam Government, during the period 1947-1948 for merger of Hyderabad State in Union of India and submitted applications for grant of freedom fighters pension under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter called ‘the Scheme’). Their cases were also recommended by the Hyderabad Special Screening Committee and the authorities at the State Government level also recommended for grant of freedom fighters pension after conducting detailed enquiry, and in the year 2004, the 1^st respondent-Union of India granted pension and the authorities started paying the pension. While the things being so, the Union of India, by virtue of the impugned orders, cancelled the pension and directed recovery of pension drawn by the petitioners till date.

¶14

4. While ordering Rule Nisi, this Court granted interim orders in all these writ petitions and the same are subsisting as on date. Responding to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court, a reply has been filed on behalf of the Union of India, denying the averments made in the writ

¶15

affidavit and in the direction of justifying the impugned action. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government.

¶16

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned action of cancellation of pension is highly illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and opposed to the very Scheme framed by the Union of India. It is further contended that the impugned cancellation orders were not preceded by any notices and opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and before submission of re-verification report the respondents at the State Government level did not give any opportunity to the petitioners.

¶17

6. Per contra, it is contended by the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the State Government that the impugned orders are in conformity with the Scheme; that there is neither illegality nor irregularity in the impugned cancellation orders and that in the absence of the same these writ petitions are not maintainable and the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in this Court.

¶18

7. In the light of the pleadings, submissions and contentions, the issue, which this Court is called upon to answer, is whether the impugned cancellation orders are sustainable and tenable in the eye of law.

¶19

8. The Union of India, with a laudable and sacred object of safeguarding the freedom fighters from the onslaught of the financial constraints, which they are exposed to because of the sacrifices made by them at the cost of their health, wealth, and young age, introduced Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. The benefit under the said scheme is neither a charity nor a gratis, and on the other hand, the same is a right conferred on the freedom fighters in due recognition of the sacrifices made by them in the freedom struggle for liberating our country from the clutches and shackles of the colonial and feudal forces.

¶20

Therefore, the authorities entrusted with the functions under the Scheme are supposed to be cautious and pragmatic in their approach and should not give any scope for arbitrariness in their action while dealing with the claims under the Scheme. The impugned action in these writ petitions is required to be assessed and analysed in the light of the above aspects.

¶21

9. In these writ petitions, the Union of India granted freedom fighters pension in the year 2004 in favour of the petitioners pursuant to the recommendations made by the State Government. By virtue of the impugned orders, the Union of India ordered cancellation of the said grants and also ordered recovery of the said amounts already drawn so far. The impugned orders refer to the subsequent enquiries made by the State Government and the reports thereon. It is the categorical case of the petitioners that the said re-verification reports were submitted by the State Government without any notice and opportunity to the petitioners. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that had the petitioners been given prior notice and opportunity of being heard, the impugned orders of cancellation would not have emanated.

¶22

10. Though the petitioners filed these writ petitions as long back as in the year 2008, no counter affidavits have been filed by the State Government either in the direction of denying the averments made in the writ affidavit or in the direction of justifying the impugned action. Obviously, the orders impugned in these writ petitions, are the result of the reports submitted by the State Government. Therefore, in the absence of any denial by the State Government by way of filing counter affidavit, only inference and a reasonable conclusion, which can be arrived at in this background, is that the respondents resorted to the impugned action without any prior notice and without any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said action is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, iniquitous, preposterous and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and opposed to

¶23

the very Scheme framed by the Union of India and also the principles of natural justice. In these circumstances, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same are liable to be set aside.

¶24

11. For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are allowed, setting aside the impugned orders of cancellation of freedom fighters pension passed by the 1^st respondent-Union of India. However, this order will not preclude the respondent authorities from taking action after giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶25

_______________________ JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.

¶26

2^nd September, 2014 Js.

Damuluri Venkateswarlu v. The Under SEcretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Damuluri Venkateswarlu v. The Under SEcretary

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

S.v.Raghavacharyulu, Vs National Housing Bank Owned by the Reserve Bank of India

Bheemakka, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.Venkateswar Reddy Vs The State of A.P

Ponnapati Balakoti Reddy, Vs The District Collector (Land Acquisition), Guntur.

Lagadapati Narsimha Rao Vs The Under Secretary, Freedom Fighters Division

Cherukuru Narsimha Rao Vs The Under Secretary Freedom Fighters Division