Dismissed

Ragam Upender v. The Government of India

Telangana HC5 Aug 2021WP/4914/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the failure to grant retrospective pension of the Swatantra Sainik Samman Scheme, 1980. The court held that where petitioners were granted pension with effect from the order date due to benefit of doubt and lack of requisite documentary evidence, relief from the date of application was untenable.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ragam Upender Vs The Government of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.4914 OF 2012

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ragam Upender, S/o late Ramaswamy, Rl/o H.No.1 5-1 0-48, Ramannapeta, Waranga l.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Government of lndia, Rep. by its Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Freedom Fighters Division, Loknayak Bhavan, Khan lvlarket, YPSFIn OT*ra

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably writ of ftrlandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not granting pension to the petitioner from the date of application from 1997 under "Swatantra Sa^jnik Samman Pension scheme-1980" and granting pension only with effect from 12-3-2009 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to release arrears of pension to the petitioner from the date of his application i.e. from^'1997 under the above said scheme.

¶14

WPMP. NO: 6274 OF 2012

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondent to consider the case of the^petitioner for^grant of arrears of^penston under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension scheme-1980 from the date of his application i.e. from 1997 pending the disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON'BLE SIlI JUSTICE^{ABHINANDKUMAII SHAVILI}

¶20

W.P.No.49l4 of 2012

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

When the ntatter is taken^{up for hearing, Iearned counselfor the} petitioner fairly conceded that the^{issue involvedin this Writ Petition} is squalely covered by the^{order of this Court in W.I'.No.30769of} 2}ll dt.27-04-2012 and that^{the matter was adjudicat-'d againstthe} petitioner.

¶23

Recording the said submission^{and for reasons atike, this Writ} Petition is also disnrissed^{fbllorvingthc order passed in W.P.No'30769} ol20 11 d1.27-04-2012.^{No costs,}

¶24

Misccllaneous petitions^{pending, if any, shall stand closed.}

¶25

SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTAN EGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY' SE FFICER

¶26

To '1. One CC to Sri KoMuru Pavan Kumar' Advocate [OPUCI clicitor General^(OPUC) i. 6;; cc i;^Sri Nrru,uiup'^{najeshwarRao' AssistantS}

¶27

Two^{CD CoPies.}

¶28

One SPare^CoPY

¶29

Along with^{a Copy of the Orderdaled 27 '04'20'12 in W'PNo 30769 of 2011'}

T/P

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510812021

ORDER

WP.No.4914 ot 2012

L S.IA I€
1
I
Joo 03 sEP202l
*
t DES o

¶36

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶37

¶38

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶40

W.P.Nos.30769. 34587 of 2011 and 42'13 of 2012

¶41

Common order:

¶42

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.

¶43

Aggrieved by the action of the respondent in not granting arrears of pension under "Swatanta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980' from the date of their respective applications, the petitioners filed the present writ^petitions.

¶44

It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 34587 ot 2011, 4213 o'f 2012, ftst^petitioner in Writ Petition No. 30769 of 2011 and the husbands of the second and third^petitioners in Writ Petition No. 30769 o12011 had pafticipated 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 scheme viz., "Swatanta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980' lo provide financial assistance to the freedom fighters. Accordingly, the

¶45

¶46

¶47

petitioners had applied for grant of pension uncer "Swatanta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, /980'. lt 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 cornplaint of the petitioners that despite their applications were marle in the year 1997 and their lds were called for in the year 2005, the respondent had sanctioned pension with effect frorn 07-1 1-2009 in respect of petitioner No.1, from 22-10-2010 anl^'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 witr effect from 24-01-2011 in respect of petitioner in W.P.No.4213 of 2012 It has been further averred that ln all the pr{-rvious cases freedom fighters were granted pension from the date of their applications and denial of same benefit to the peti .ioners herein from the date of their respective applicatiorrs IS highly discriminatory. Hence these Writ Petitions.

¶48

Heard the learned Counsel on either r;ide. Perused the material on record carefully.

¶49

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

¶50

¶51

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 SURYAMMA v. UNION OF tNDtAl and in GIJDA TARAMANI v. LINION OF \NDA2 wherein directions were given to the respondents to reconsider their applications for sanction of pension from the date of their applications.

¶52

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 relaxed eligibility and evidentiary requirements 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 impugned order, the Pension would be given to the^{petitioners prospectively} with 'zor^{r (o) eLo+al} 'zoto(o)^aLoro

¶53

¶54

effect from the date of the decision of the competent authority by giving benefit of doubt and in line with the riecision of the Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 23125 ot 1995, dated 24.4.1995 and sLP No. 25053 0f 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, 7980 . She therefore ass,trted 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 Cour: in IJNION OF INDIA v. GNESH CHANDRA DOLA1 and uNlC,N OF tNDtA v. KAUSHALAYA DEV.

¶55

A careful reading of the impugned sanction order demonstrates that the claims of the petitioners were considered based on the relaxed eligibility and evidentiary requirements in relaxation of the normal eligibility and evidentiary requirements of the Scheme on the basis of certificates given lty other central freedom fight pensioners, recommendation of the State Government and that of Screening Committt,.e of Eminent

¶56

3 lrse;1 to scc 2ts

¶57

o lzooty e scc szs

¶58

¶59

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

¶60

" 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 doubl'.

¶61

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

¶62

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

¶63

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.

¶64

¶65

ln Yelmareddy Suryamma 's case (referred supra),

¶66

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

¶67

" Hence, it is beyond an/ pale of doubt that the standard which the l\linistry of Home Affairs can look for, while deraling with cases for sanction of Freedom Fighters Pension must not be proof beyond rloubt like in a criminal case. The attempt that r;hould be made is, not to find lacunae or short,loming in the evidence nor was it proper to exilmine the record under a huge magnifying g ass. The rational approach is to find as to wl'rether the evidence produced by the claime nts is a probable one that lends credence to the claim made or not and on that basis the decision should be rested."

¶68

It is relevant to note that in that case also relevant evidence as prescribed under the Swatantra $ainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 was produced. Takirg the relevant criteria into account, this Court directed the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner from the date of the application for sanction of pension.

¶69

As clearly stated above, the petitioners in these cases failed to produce necessary evidence as prescribed under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1g80 and the respondent on the basis of the relaxed eligibility and evidinciary requirement in relaxation of the normal procedure

¶70

¶71

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.

¶72

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

¶73

" 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^givenfrom the date of the order."

¶74

¶75

tn UNION OF INDIA v. I(AUSHALAYA DEVI (4

¶76

supra) the Supreme Court held as follows:

¶77

"..... ln other words, the claim was not allowed on the basis of jail certificate produ<:ed by the claimant but on the basis of oral stirtement of some other detenu. Hence, we are of the opinion that the pension should be granted from the date of the order and no: from the date of the application."

¶78

Further this Courl is conscious tlrat payment of pension to the freedom fighters cannot be treated as a charity or bounty. lt is a privilege conferred on them in recognition of their selfless sacrifices for the cause of the rration. Genuine freedom fighters deserve to be treated with relerence, respect and honour. At the same time, it is necessary to weed out bogus claims. Otherwise, it would be making a mockery of the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme 'rvhich is in fact intended to mitigate the sufferings of those whc had given their all for the country in the honour of its need.

¶79

Keeping the above avowed obje<t in mind and considering the cases of the petitioners on the touchstone of the law laid down by the Apex Couft on the point, as discussed

¶80

¶81

hereinabove, this Court is of the firm view that there is no arbitrariness or illegality in passing the impugned sanction orders granting pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme from the date of the order but not from the date of their applications.

¶82

ln the back drop of the facts and circumstances of these cases, I do not find any merit in these cases which are liable to be dismissed.

¶83

The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed in consequence. There shall be no order as costs.

¶84

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.

¶85

27-04-2012 Murthy/Msnr.

Ragam Upender v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ragam Upender v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Rajanna, Adilabad Dist. and 7 Others Vs Deccan Grameena Bank, Hyd

Kotamma and Another, Vs the Dy. Secy., Home Affairs, New Delhi, and 3 Others

Muppidi Ananth Reddy Vs The Union of India

Cherabuddi Education Society, Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad

Mohammed Omer and another Vs The Regional Passport Office

Valishetti Shankaraiah, Vs Valishetti Narsimha