Dismissed

Smt. Dayam Soma Laxmi v. The Government of India

Telangana HC15 Sept 2021WP/22250/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking arrears of pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Scheme, 1980, from the date of application. Holding that pension was granted on a 'benefit of doubt' basis due to lack of required evidence, the court ruled it could only be effective from the order date, not the application date.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is not entitled to arrears of pension from the date of application; pension is valid only prospectively from the date of the order of sanction.

Smt. Dayam Soma Laxmi Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH^{DAYOF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶5

WRIT PETITION^{NO: 22250 OF 2012}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. Dayam Soma^{Laxmi,W/o late Dayam Bhaga.van Reddy,} \ge!.7.2 yea rs, Oil' Hoi,iet old; r/o^{Vempati(V),Thunlathurthy(M),Nalgonda District'}

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Government of^{lndia,Rep.by its Deputy Secretary, Ministry of HomeAffairs'} i ili,,ii,'iiir^g hi";;bi;i;i;h,^{L5d;v;kB h;vdn,t<na n Nii rket,N ew Der hi}

¶11

,..RESPONDENT

¶12

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court may be pleasedto} issue writ or direction^{preferablywrit of mandamus declaringthe action of the} respondent in not^{granting pension to the petitioner from the dateof applicationi.e.} from 1 997 under^{"swatantrasainik Samman Pension scheme-1980"andgranting} pension only with effect from^{15-7-2010 as illegal,arbitrary, discriminatoryand} violative of^{principles of naturaljustice and consequentlydirect the respondentto} release arrears of^{pension to the petitioner from the date of the applicationie' from} 1997 onwards underthe^{above said scheme'}

¶13

WPMP. NO: 2852⁰ oF²⁰¹²

¶14

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the Highcourtmaybe pleased to directthe} respondent to consider^{the case of the petitionerfor grantof arrearsof pension under} swatantra sainik samman^{Pensionscheme-1980 fromthe date of the application} from 1997^{pendingthe disposal of writ petition}

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent:^{SMT S. NANDA}

¶17

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶18

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR STIAVILI

¶19

vlU{o2225-Q-Q82012

¶20

QBDE]T:

¶21

When the matter is taken up for hearing, leatned counsel

¶22

appearing for the petitioner fairly conceded thrrt the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 27 .04.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.No.30769 of 2011.

¶23

Follorving the order dared27.04.2012 in \V.P.No.30769 ot

¶24

2011, tlis Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶25

Misccllancous petitions, if any, pending sl-rall stand

ULA closed. RAR ASSI

//TRUE^COPYII

toPucr

SECTION^{OFFIC ER}

"' I 3ffi 33 8 3'l,1"{:lt::xe*:["t66t,'sf' : (Atons^with "^*o' ";^{;;;"' in W'P No'3076eof 201 1' dared27'04'2012')}

'ffi33#83;, "^lu'

HIGH COURT

DATED:1510912021

ORDER

W.P.No.22250 of 2012

'{ r1 E r{.
(
,/<br>c'
ooJ 0 5 ocT 2021 o
* *
tr

¶38

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶39

-z

¶40

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶42

W.P.Nos.30769 .34587 of2011and4213^{of 2012}

¶43

Common order:

¶44

ln as much as the issue involved^{in all these writ} petitions is similar and identical, they are amenable to^disposal by way of this common^order.

¶45

Aggrieved by the action of the^{respondentin not} granting arrears of pension under^{"swatanta Sainik Samman} Pension Scheme, 1980'^{Irom the date of their respective} applications, the^{petitioners filed the presentwrit petitions.}

¶46

It is the case of the^{petitioners that the petitionersin} Writ Petition Nos. 34587 of^{2011,4213 of 2012, fisl petitioner} in Writ Petition No. 30769^{of 2011 and the husbands of the} second and third^{petitioners in Writ Petition No. 30769of 2011} had^participated in the^{Liberation Struggle of the Nizam State of} Hyderabad during the^{years 1947-48.lt has been averred that} the Government of^{lndia had formulated a schemeviz',} "swatanta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme,^{1980'lo provide} financial assistance to the^{freedomfighters.Accordingly, the}

¶47

¶48

petitioners had applied^{for grant of pension under "Swatanta} Sainik Samman^{Pension Scheme, 1980'' ll is the case of the} petitioners that after^{thorough verification,their lDs were called} for through^{the letter dated21.5.2005. lt is the complaint of the} petitioners that despite^{their applicationswere made in the year} 1997 and their^{lds were called for in the year 2005' the} respondent had^{sanctioned pension with effectfrom07-1 1-2009} in respect of^{petitioner No.'1,from 22-10-2010and 13-04-2010} respectively in^{respect of petitioner Nos'2 and 3in} W.P.No.30769 of^{2011; with effect from 10-04-2010in respect} of^petitioners in^{W.P.No34587of 2011 and with effect from} 24-01-2011 in^{respectof petitionerin W'P No'4213 of 2012'} It has been further^{averred that in all the previouscases} freedom fighters^{were granted pension from the date of their} applications and^{denial of same benefit to the petitioners herein} from the date of^{their respective applications is highly} discriminatory.^{Hence these Writ Petitions'}

¶49

Heard the learned^{Counselon either side' Perused} the material on^{record carefullY.}

¶50

Sri Kowturu^{Vinaya Kumar,learned counselfor the} petitioners in all the writ^{petitions, contendsthat earlierthe}

¶51

¶52

respondent had granted^pension to the applicants from^{the date} of their applications and as such denying^{the saidbenefitto the} petitioners herein is not sustainable. Further, he^pointed out^that no reasons were assigned for not^{granting pension from the} date of thelr applications. ln support^{of his contentions,he} placed reliance on the^judgments of this^Courtin YELMAREDDY SURYAMMA v.^{IJN\ONOF tNDlAlandin} GUDA TARAMANT v.^{uNtON OF tNDtAzwhereindirections} were given to the^{respondentsto reconsidertheir applications} for sanction of^{pensionfrom the date of their applications'}

¶53

On the other^{hand,Smt.S.Nanda, learned standing} counsel for the^{respondent-Union of lndia submitted that as the} petitioners were granted Pension^{by giving benefit of doubt'} they are not entitled^{to claim pension from the date of their} applications. She^{also submitted that in the sanction order it has} been clearly stated^{that if the claims had been considered} based on the^{relaxedeligibility and evidentiary requirementsin} relaxation of the^{normaleligibility and evidentiary requirements} of the scheme and^{basingon the ceftificates given by the} competent authority^{as mentioned in the impugned order,the} Pension would be^{given to the petitioners prospectively with}

¶54

'^{20 l r (6) ALD487}

¶55

'20t0(6)^{ALD 70}

¶56

¶57

effect from the date of the decision of the competent authority by giving benefit of doubt and in line with the decision of the Apex Courl in SLP (C) No. 23125 of 1995, dated 24.4.1995 and SLP No. 25053 of 1995, dated 30.4.1996. She also pointed out that in the case on hand, the petitioners failed to produce the evidence in proof of their underground suffering as prescribed under lhe "Swatanta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 . She therefore asserted that the petitioners are not entitled to grant of pension from the date of their applications. ln support of her contentions she placed reliance on the^judgments of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA v. GNESH CHANDRA DOLAP and LINION OF \NDIA v. I<AUSHALAYA DEVI.

¶58

A careful reading of the impugned sanction order demonstrates that the claims of the petitioners^/vere considered based on the relaxed eligibility and evidentiary requirements in relaxation of the normal eligibility and evidentierry requirements of the Scheme on the basis of certificates given by other central freedom fight pensioners, recommendation of the State Government and that of Screening Committee of Eminent

¶59

r lteez; ro scc zae o lzoory e scc szs

¶60

¶61

Freedom Fighters. Therein, it was categorically indicated to the following effect:

¶62

"it has been decided that in such cases the Samman Pension will be^{given prospectively with effect from} the date of the decision of^{the competent authorityby giving} benefit of doubt'.

¶63

ln Guda Taramani's case^{(referred supra),} considering the chequered^{history of the case of the petitioner} therein, this Court^{inter alia held thus:}

¶64

"................Un|ess the veracity of^these documents is doubted,^{there can be no} rationale whatsoever^{in giving purported} benefit of doubt to^{the petitionerand denying} her pension for^{the period anteriorto the date} on which the^{pension is sanctioned'..,.."}

¶65

Ultimately, this^{Court directedthe first respondent} therein to reconsider^{the case of the petitioner therein for} sanction of^{pension from the date of the application' lt maybe} mentioned that in^{the said case, necessaryevidence was} produced as required under^{the Swatantra Sainik Samman} Pension Scheme,^1980.

¶66

¶67

ln Yelmareddy Suryamma^{'s case(referredsupra),}

¶68

this Court having been regard to the^{facts and circumstancesof} that case, inter alia, held thus:

¶69

" Hence, it is beyond anY Pale of doubt that the standard which the Ministry^of Home Affairs can look for, while dealing with cases for sanction of Freedom Fighters Pension must not be^proof beyoncl doubt like in a criminal case. The attempt that should be made is, not to find lacunae or shortcomingⁱⁿ the evidence nor was it^proper to examine the record under a huge magnifying^glass. The rational approach is to find as to whether the evidence produced by the clairnants is a probable one that lends credence to the claim made or not and on that basis the decision should be rested."

¶70

It is relevant to note that in that r;ase also relevant evidence as^prescribed under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 was^produced. Taking the^relevant criteria into account, this Courl directed the respondent^to reconsider the case of the petitioner fronr the date of the application for sanction of pension.

¶71

As clearly stated above, the petitioners in these CASES failed to produce necessary evidence as prescribed under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pens,ion Scheme, 1980 and the respondent on the basis of the relaxed eligibility and evidinciary requirement in relaxation of ther normal procedure

¶72

¶73

had accorded sanction of pension to the petitioners. Once the petitioners are found to have failed in producing necessary evidence before the respondent, it is not open to them to attribute the delay in sanction of pension to them and more particularly from the date of their applications.

¶74

ln UNION OF INDIA v. GNESH CHANDRA DOLAI(3 supra) the Supreme Court in^para-4 of the^judgment held as under:

¶75

" We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the ratio in Duli Chand case (1992) 2 SCC 28) is not applicable to the facts of the^present case. ln Duli Chand case this Court had by the order dated 16-07-1990 directed the Government^of lndia to^{pay pension} to the^petitioners therein w.e.f. 1-8-1980. lt was specifically mentioned in the order that all the 41^petitioners had produced the relevant documents supporting their claim and keeping in view of the^{facts of} these cases^pension was directed to^{be given} w.e.f.1980. ln this case the Government^of lndia has categorically stated that^the respondents were given benefit of^{doubt and} as such the^pension can only be^{given from} the date of the order."

¶76

¶77

tn LlNION OF tNDtA^{v. KAIJSHALAYADEVI (4}

¶78

supra) the Supreme^{Court heldas follows:}

¶79

"..... ln other words, the^{claimwas not allowed} on the basis^{of jail certificate producedby the} claimant but on the basis^{of oral statementof} some other detenu.^{Hence, we are of the} opinion that the^{pension shouldbe granted} from the date of the^{order and not from the} date of the apPlication."

¶80

Further this Court^{is conscious that paymentof} pension to the freedom fighters^{cannot be treated as a charity} or bounty. lt is a^{privilege conferred on them in recognitionof} their selfless sacrifices^{for the cause of the nation'Genuine} freedom fighters^{deserveto be treated with reverence, respect} and honour. At the^{same time, it is necessaryto weedout} bogus claims. Otherwise,^{it wouldbe making a mockeryof the} Swatantra Sainik^{Samman Pension Schemewhichis in fact} intended to mitigate the^{sufferings of those who had given their} all for the country in the^{honourof its need.}

¶81

Keeping the above avowed^{object in mind and} considering the cases^{of the petitioners on the touchstoneof the} law laid down by the Apex Court^{on the point, as discussed}

¶82

¶83

hereinabove,^{this Court is of the firm view that there is no} arbitrariness^{or illegality in passingthe impugnedsanction} orders^{granting pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman} Pension^{Scheme from the date of the order but not from the} date of^{their aPPlications'}

¶84

ln the^{back drop of the facts and circumstances of} these^{cases,I do not find any merit in these cases whichare} liable to^{be dismissed'}

¶85

The writ^{petitions are accordingly dismissed'} Miscellaneous^{Petitions are also dismissed in consequence'} There shall^{be no order as costs'}

¶86

ASHUTOSH^MOHUNTA,J.

¶87

27-04-2012 MurlhY/Msnr.

¶88

¶89

¶90

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUS TICE A TA

¶91

W.P. Nos.30769 34587of 2011 and 4 213 of 2012

¶92

order:

¶93

ln as much as the issue involved in all these writ petitions is similar and identical, they are amenable to disposal by way of this common order.

¶94

Aggrieved by the action of the respondent in not granting arrears of pension under ,.swatanta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, /gg0, from the date of their respective applications, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions.

¶95

It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 34587 of 2011, 4213 of 2012, first petitioner in Writ petition No. 30769 of 2011 and the husbands of the second and third petitioners in Writ petition No.30769 of ZO11 had participated in the Liberation Struggle of the Nizam State of Hyderabad during the years 1g47_4g. lt has been averred that the Government of lndia had formulated a scheme viz., "Swatanta Sainik Samman pension Scheme, lgg0, toprovide financial assistance to the freedom fighters. Accordingly, the

¶96

petitioners had applied for grant of penslon under "Swatanta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980'. ll is the case of the petitioners that after thorough verification, their lDs were called for through the letter dated 21.5.2005. lt is the complaint of the petitioners that despite their applications were made in the year 1997 and their lds were called for in the year 2005, the respondent had sanctioned pension with effect from 07-1^'l-2009 in respect of petitioner No.1, from 22-10-2010 and 13-04-2010 respectively in respect of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in W.P.No.30769 of 2011; with effect from 10-04-2010 in respect of petitioners in W.P.No34587 of 2011 and with effect from 24-01-2011 in respect of petitioner in W.P.No.4213 ot 2012 It has been further averred that in all the previous cases freedom fighters were granted pension from the date of their applications and denial of same benefit to the petitioners herein from the date of their respective applications IS highly discriminatory. Hence these Writ Petitions.

¶97

Heard the learned Counsel on either side. Perused the material on record carefully.

¶98

Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions, contends that earlier the

¶99

¶100

respondent had^{granted pension} to the^{applicants from the date} of their applications and as such denying the^{said benefit to the} petitioners herein is not sustainable. Further, he^pointed out that no reasons were assigned for not^{granting pension} from^the date of their applications. ln support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in YELMAREDDY SLTRYAMMA v. LIN\ON OF tNDAl and^In ctJDA TARAMANT v. UNION OF lNDlfr wherein directions were given to the respondents to reconsider their applications for sanction of pension from the date of their applications.

¶101

On the other hand, Smt.S.Nanda, learned standing counsel for the respondent-Union of India submitted that as the petitioners were granted Pension by giving berefit of doubt, they are not entitled to claim^pension from the date of their applications. She also submitted that in the sanction order it has been clearly stated that if the claims had been considered based on the relaxed eligibility and evidentiary rerquirements in relaxation of the normal eligibility and evidentiary' requirements of the scheme and basing on the certificates given by the competent authority as mentioned in the impugred order, the Pension would be given to the petitioners^{prospectively} with '^{20 l l (6) ALD487} ':oro1o1^aLolo

¶102

¶103

effect from the date of the decision of the competent authority by giving benefit of doubt and in line with the decision of the Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 23125 oI 1995, dated 24.4.1995 and SLP No. 25053 of 1995, dated 30.4.1996. She also pointed out that in the case on hand, the petitioners failed to produce the evidence in proof of their underground suffering as prescribed under lhe^"Swatanta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 . She therefore asserted that the petitioners are not entitled to grant of pension from the date of their applications. ln support of her contentions she^placed reliance on the^judgments of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA v. GNESH CHANDRA DOtAf and LlNION OF \NDIA^v. KAUSHALAYA DEV.

¶104

A careful reading of the impugned sanction order demonstrates that the claims of the^{petitioners were considered} based on the relaxed eligibility and evidentiary requirementsⁱⁿ relaxation of the normal eligibility and evidentiary requirements of the Scheme on the basis of certificates^given by^{other central} freedom fight pensioners, recommendation of the^State Government and that of Screening Committee of^Eminent

¶105

'(tgst)^{to scczaq} o lzoor; e scc szs

¶106

¶107

Freedom Fighters. Therein, it was categorically indicated to the following effect:

¶108

"it has been decided that in such cases the Samman Pension will be given prospectively with effect from the date of the decision of the competent authority by giving benefit of doubt'.

¶109

ln Guda Taramani,s case (referred supra), considering the chequered history of the case of the petitioner therein, this Court inter alia held thus:

¶110

"................Un1ess the veracity of these documents is doubted, there can be no rationale whatsoever in giving pLrrported benefit of doubt to the petitioner and denying her pension for the period anterior to the dat6 on which the pension is sanctioned......,,

¶111

Ultimately, this Court directed the first respondent therein to reconsider the case of the petitioner therein for sanction of pension from the date of the application. lt may be mentioned that in the said case, necessary evidence was produced as required under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980.

¶112

¶113

ln Yelmareddy Suryamma 's case (referred supra),

¶114

this Court having been regard to the facts and circumstances of that case, inter alia, held thus:

¶115

" Hence, it is beyond any pale of doubt that the standard whlch the t\4inistry of Home Affairs can look for, while dealing with cases for sanction of Freedom Fighters Pension must not be^proof beyond doubt like in a criminal case. The attempt that should be made is, not to find lacunae or shortcoming in the evidence nor was it^proper to examine the record under a huge magnifying^glass. The rational approach is to find as to whether the evidence produced by the claimants is a probable one that lends credence to the claim made or not and on that basis the decision should be rested."

¶116

It is relevant to note that in that case also relevant evidence as^prescribed under the Swatantra Sainik^Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 was^produced. Taking the^relevant criteria into account, this Court directed^{the respondentto} reconsider the case of the^{petitioner from the date of the} application for sanction of^pension.

¶117

As clearly stated above,^{the petitioners in these} cases failed to^{produce necessaryevidence as prescribed} under the Swatantra^{Sainik Samman Pension Scheme,1980} and the respondent^{on the basis of the relaxed eligibilityand} evidinciary requirement^{in relaxation of the normalprocedure}

(

ln UNION OF INDIA v. GNESII CHANDRA DOLAI(3 supra) the Supreme Court in para- of the judgment held as under:

¶122

" We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the ratio in Duli Chand case (1992) 2 SCC 28) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. ln Duli Chand case this Court had by the order dated 16-07-1990 directed the Government of lndia to pay pension to the petitioners therein w.e.f. 1-8-1980. lt was specifically mentioned in the order that all the 41 petitioners had produced the relevant documents supporting their claim and keeping in view of the facts of these cases pension was directed to be given w.e.f.1980. ln this case the Government of lndia has categorically stated that the respondents were given benefit of doubt and as such the pension can only be glven from the date of the order."

¶123

¶124

ln UNTON OF tNDtA v. MUSHALAYA DEV| (4 supra) the Supreme Court held as follows:

¶125

"..... ln other words, the claim was not allowed on the basis of jail certificate produced by the claimant but on the basis of oral statement of some other detenu. Hence, we are of the opinion that the pension should be granted from the date of the order and not from the date of the application."

¶126

Further this Court is conscious that payment of pension to the freedom fighters cannot be treated as a charity or bounty. lt is a privilege conferred on them in^{recognitionof} their selfless sacrifices for the cause of^{the nation.Genuine} freedom fighters deserve to^{be treated with reverence,respect} and honour. At the same^{time, it is necessaryto weedout} bogus claims. Otherwise,^{it would be makinga mockeryof the} Swatantra Sainik^{Samman Pension Schemewhichis in fact} intended to mitigate^{the sufferings of those who had given their} all for the country^{in the honour of its need'}

¶127

Keeping the above^{avowed object in mind and} considering the^{cases of the petitioners on the touchstone of the} law laid down by^{the Apex Court on the point, as discussed}

¶128

¶129

'(.

¶130

hereinabove,^{this Court is of the firm view that there is no} arbitrariness^{or illegality in passingthe impugnedsanction} orders^{granting pension under the SwatantraSainik Samman} Pension^{Scheme from the date of the order but not from the} date of their^{aPPlications.}

¶131

ln the back drop^{of the facts and circumstances of} these cases, I do^{not find any merit in these cases whichare} liable to be dismissed.

¶132

The writ petitions are accordingly^dismissed. lVliscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed^{in consequence.} There shall be no order as costs.

¶133

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.

¶134

27-04-2012 Murthy/Msnr.

Smt. Dayam Soma Laxmi v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dayam Soma Laxmi v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Hyd. Vs Sri.D.Sukumar, Hyd and Another

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc and Another Vs the Presiding Officer and Another

B. Prabhakara Reddy, Hyd. Vs A.P. Scheduled Caste , Hyd.

Ravi Surya Engineering Associates Vs The Chairman

M.D. Sadiq Basha, Kurnool and Another Vs Secy Ministry of Youth Affairs of Sports, New Delhi and 3 Ot

Sameera Afroze, Vs The Regional Passport Officer