Dismissed

Union of India v. R Ramaiah

Telangana HC13 Dec 2022WA/441/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed the Union of India's writ appeal against the Single Judge's order. The Single Judge had directed the Centre to grant pension to a freedom fighter based on secondary evidence and state verification given his advanced age. The Court refused to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was dismissed without costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

Union of India Vs R Ramaiah — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

[^32s5 ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 441 OF 2022

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal Preffered Agianst The Order Dated 1610312022 Passed in W.P.No 40466 of 2012on the file of the High Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, Grih Mantralaya Freedom Fighter Division, NDCC-Il Building Jai Singh Road, New Delhi- 110001

¶11

...APPELLANT/RESPONOENT NO.1

¶12

AND

¶13

1 R Ramaiah S/o Late R Pullaiah R/o H.No, 1-87916218, S.B.H. Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Hyde16bad

¶14

2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh (Now Telangana), Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Depart., T.S Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶15

.,.RESPONOENTS M/RIT PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT NO.2

¶16

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶17

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 suspend the operation of the order daled 161312022 in W.P No.40466 of 2012 pending disposal of WP

¶18

Couttsel for the Appellant: SRI B.MUKHERJEE FOR MR.GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent 1: SRI A K JAYAPRAKASH RAO

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondent 2: SRI M.RAJESWARI GP FOR REVENUE

¶21

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶22

THE HON'B,I} THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHITYAN

¶23

AND

¶24

THE HON'E LE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶25

t^ItraIT APPEAL No,441 of 2022

¶26

JUDGMENTi It;i the. Hon'ble tte C'.htef Justice Ujjal Bhugan)

¶27

Heard Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Mr. Gadi Pravee.r Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the z ppellant and Mr. A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1. We have also heard Ms. M.Rajesu,ari , learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for resp rndent No.2.

¶28

Union of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs is the appellant befr rre us.

¶29

This rtppeal is directed against the order dated 16.03.2022 passr'd by the learned Single Judge disposing of Writ Petition No.z 0466 of 2Ol2 fiied by the l"t respondent as the writ petitioncr .

¶30

¶31

2 HCJ &, CVBRJ W.A.No.441 of 2022

¶32

4 . l"t respondent had filed the related writ petition for quashing of order dated 08.08.2012 of the appellant rejecting the claim of the l"t respondent for sanction of Freedom Fighter's Pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (briefly referred to hereinafter as the 'Scheme').

¶33

By the order dated 16.03.2022, learned Single Judge directed the appellant to consider the case of the l"t respondent forthwith and grant Freedom Fighter's Pension from the date of his application within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

¶34

Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant at the outset has drawn our attention to the salient features of the Scheme, more pa-rticula-rly to Clause (2.3) thereof and submits that to be eligible for grant of pension under the Scheme on account of remaining underground for more than six months while participating in the freedom struggie, the claimant must be a proclaimed offender; or one on whom an award for arrest was announced; or one for whose detention,

¶35

3 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.Ntl.441 of 2O22

¶36

order was issued but not served. He submits that respondent No.l does not fulfil either of the conditions as mentioned supra. There fore, Director, Freedom Fighter's Division, Ministry of Horre Affairs, Government of India had informed the 2.a respondlnt i.e., State of Telangana that 1st respondent does not fuil il the eligibility criteria ard evidentiary requirements under the Scheme. Consequently, recommendalic r of the State Government for relaxettion of his age for grant ol Samman Pension was found to be not acceptable. Tt erefore, claim of 1"t respondent for pension under the Scherne was rejected.

¶37

In srrpport of his submissions, Mr. Mukherjee has relied upon the ollowing decisions:

¶38

Union of India v. K.Indrasena Reddyl,

¶39

Gover:o m.ent of India v. Panjala Rajaiahz, and

¶40

State olOrissa v. Choudhuri Nayaks.

¶41

| (2OO7l 14 Supren e Court Cases 3O5

¶42

z A division bench r lecision of this Court dated 20.O2.2C,07 in W.A.No.175 of 2OO7

¶43

3 AIR 2010 SUPREI4E COURT 3588

¶44

¶45

¶46

HC] & CVBRJ W.A.No.441 of 2022

¶47

On the above basis he submits that learned Single Judge was not justilied in issuing the impugned direction which is required to be set aside.

¶48

9 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1"t respondent has referred to the set of material papers submitted on 20 .O7 .2022, more particularly to the revised guidelines for processing and deciding applications for pension under the Scheme on recommendation of the State Government. He submits that as per the revised guidelines, minor deficiencies in the applications are required to be condoned. If in the original application, the applicant has not specifically indicated or claimed six months underground suffering/border camp pa-rticipation, but in the supporting Camp In-charge certificate or Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) as well as in the State Government report, it becomes clearly evident that the applicant had remained underground or had pa-rticipated in the border camp for a period of six months or more, the same may be accepted. That apart, where original application from the lreedom fighter is not

¶49

D HC] & CVBRJ W.A.No.441" of 2O22

¶50

available on rec )rd, sllch claim may be considered but signed application sh c uld be obtained at the time of callt'ng for identification^{ l' )cuments. PKC need not indicate details of the authority and the cases which necessitated the underground s rffering of the applicant for more than six months etc.^'lh r PKC, if otherwise va1id, may be accepted

¶51

1 0. Subr :rissions made by learned counsel for the parties have rec:ived the due consideration of the Court.

¶52

li. The Scheme was introduced during the Silver Jubilee Year o I Independence to provide for pension to freedom fightels and their eligible dependents with effect from 15.08.1972. SrLbsequently', the Scheme was liberalized and was made effec t ve from O 1.08. 1980. It is true that as per the Scheme, if a pt rson claims to be a freedom fighter or had participated ir the freedom struggle by remaining underground frr^- more than six months, he is required to provide proof ol' .he following:

¶53

6 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.441 of 2022

¶54

a) being declared as a proclaimed offender; or

¶55

b) one on whom an award for arrest was announced; or

¶56

c) one for whose detention order was issued but not served.

¶57

Subsequently as noticed above, revised guidelines have been issued by the Central Government considering the fact that most of the claimants are verv old.

¶58

Insofar the decision of the Supreme Court in K.Indrasena Reddy (supra 1) is concerned, Supreme Court has relied upon the provision dealing with claim of a person to pension under the Scheme on account of his participation in freedom struggle having remained underground for more than six months, which provision we have already analyzed above. In the facts of that case, it was found that the Single Bench had rendered a finding that the above conditions were not fulfilled. Therefore, Supreme Court carne to the conclusion that the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in reversing the finding of the Single bench.

¶59

I /

¶60

7 HCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.441 of 2022

¶61

A [)i,.ision Bench of this Court in Panjala Rajaiah (supra 2) obse'r ed that the Central Government is not obliged to accept tlrl recommendations made by the State Government lor grant of pension to a person claiming himself to be a freedr m fighter. However, it was clarified that recommendatiorr s made by the State Government deserve due consideration :r^'rc[ weightage, but final decision in the matter is required to I re taken by the Central Government. While taking the fin a decision , Centra,l Government is bound to consider the r ecommendations of the State Government together with o-her reievant records and thereafter form an independent op nion on the eligibility and entitlement of the claimant to re<:eive pension under the Scheme.

¶62

Fin:r lf in the case of Choudhuri Nayak (supra 3), Supreme Cour expressed concern over bogus claims to pension under rhe Scheme by producing false and fabricated documents.

¶63

Insolar the present case is concerned, we find that State Governrn ent had forwarded to the appellant its

¶64

8 HC] 8Z CVBRJ W.A.No.441 of 2022

¶65

recommendation after re-verification of the ciaim of the l"t respondent. It was mentioned therein that the Collector of Hyderabad District had verified the claim of the individual (1"t respondent) and found the same to be genuine. Based on the re-verification report received from the Collector, the case of l"t respondent was forwarded to the Central Government for sanction. Along with the recommendation, PKC issued by Sri Peddi Anj aiah Gupta, jail certificate etc., were forwarded. Certihcates issued by co-freedom fighters Mr. Nara Madhava Rao and Mr. M.Narasimha Reddy were also forwarded. However, by the order dated O8.O8.2O12 issued by the appellant, claim of 1"t respondent was rejected.

¶66

Learned Single Judge after due consideration held as follows:

¶67

"6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material available on record, it is seen that as per the scheme, all of such persons who participated in the freedom movement and who fulfrlled the conditions under the scheme only are eligible for the said pension. One of the conditions is that, the person should have suffered minimum imprisonment of six months, on account of participation in freedom struggle and was required to

¶68

TTCJ & CVBRJ W.A.No.441 of 2022

-7

,//

furnish evilences in support thereof as specified there under. ClarLSe (b) of the scheme provides that uhere there is no rcartl auailable for the releuant period, the seconda4r euidences h the form of ttDo co-pisoner certiftcates (CPC) from Freedom Fighters Luho haue suffered Jo- minimum one Aear and u.tho uere uittt tLe applicant t the^jail could be considered prouided the fr.ate / Union^'l'e ritory administrotion concemed, afier due ueiftcatiorL oJ'the claim and its genuineness certtfies that documenku g euidence from the officiat records in support of the clotn ed suffeings, is not auailable. It is submitted that this cc ndition of minimum bne year' suffering in jail has subser luently been modified to 'six months'. The petitioner's claim is under the clauses 2.2 & 2.3 i,.e. tll,e petitioner was underground on account of his participatio^-r in freedom struggle. In proof of his participatro:r in tle freedom struggle, the petitioner has filed the c ertificates of one Nara Madhava Rao and another pe^-son by n:rme M.Narasimha Reddy, both of whom havt been recognized as Freedom Fighters and have beerr granted Freedom Fighter's Pension by the Ministry of lome Affairs. Both of them have certified that the petition:r had participated in the freedom movement against lh: Nizam^(lovernment and also in Goa Liberation itruggle in 1955. It is also stated that the petitioner \ as tortured at the halds of Porluguese Aimy. The petitior rer was also presented with a Memento on account ol l he Golden Jubilee Celebration of Liberation of Nizam's, H yderabad State on 17 .O9.1998 in Nizam College^()r'r unds by tl.re then Hon'ble Home Minister, Governmeu of India, Sri L.I(.Advani The petitioner has

¶74

HC] & CVBRJ W.4.No.441 of 2022

¶75

¶76

also liled certificate of the District Collector stating that since no documents were filed for verifrcation, there are no facts which are verifiable. It is seen that only in cases where no documents are available for verification that the Clause 4 of the scheme accepting the seconda-r;i evidence would come into picture and the State Government's certificate would attain importance. The State Government has clearly given a certificate in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been considered by the respondent No. I. The petitioner is now nearly 88 years of age and directing the respondents to reconsider his case at this stage would only cause more agony to thc petitioner.

¶77

7 . In view thereof, this Court deems fit and proper to direct the respondent No.l to consider the case of the petitioner forthwith and grant the Freedom Fighters' Pension from the date of his application and make the pa).rnent thereof expeditiously i.e., within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of tJlis order.

¶78

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."

¶79

From the above, we find that learned Single Judge had referred to Clause B of the Explanation to paragraph (2.3) of the Scheme which reads as under:

./t

HC] & CVBRJ W.A. No.441" of 2022

¶84

"(b) In c: se records of the relevant period are not available, secondary evidence in the form of a Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) from a prominent freedom fighter whr has proven jail suffering of a minimum two yea.rs anc who happened to be from the same administra ive unit could be considered provided ttre State Goremment/Union Territory Administration concernc'cl, after due verilication of the claim and its genuineness, certifies that documentar5r evidences from the official records in support of tJ:e claimed sufferings were not ar ailable-"

¶85

The ,rbove provision provides that in case records of relevant periol are not available, secondary evidence in the lorm of PKC frorr a prominent lreedom fighter <sup>/ho has proven jail suffering of a minimum two years a-nd who happened to be from the sa ne administrative unit could be considered provided the St;rte Government after due verification of the claim and its genuineness, certilies that documenta{r evidences from r he officia-i records in support of the claimed sufferings were not available. Respondent No.l's claim to pension \ras^-,t lcler paragraph (2.3) of the Scheme i.e., remaining undt:r,qround for more than six months on account of his participation in freedom struggle. It was noticed that in

¶86

12 HC] & CVBRJ W.A.No.441 of 2022

¶87

proof of such participation in the freedom struggle, respondent No.1 had Iiled certificates of Mr. Nara Madhava Rao and Mr. M.Narasimha Reddy, both of whom have been recognized as freedom lighters and gra,nted pension under the Scheme by the Central Government. Both of them had certified that respondent No.1 had participated in the freedom movement, both against the Nizam rule as well as in the Goa liberation struggle. The certificates state that respondent No.1 was tortured at the hands of the Portuguese Army. In this connection, respondent No.1 was presented with a memento on account of Goiden Jubilee Celebration of Liberation of Nizam in Hyderabad State on 17.09.1998 by the then Home Minister of India.

¶88

l,earned Single Judge also noted that at the time of hearing of the writ petition, l"t respondent was nearly 88 years of age. Ordinarily, at such an advalced stage, it is not expected that a senior citizen will come up with a false and fabricated narrative to claim pension under the Scheme.

t3 HC] & CVBRJ W.A.No.441"of 2O22

¶93

27 . Ther,:fore, on a thorough consideration of all

¶94

aspects of the matter, .ve are not inclined to invoke our appellate jurisclirtion in Letters Patent and set aside the order of the learned Sirgle Judge.

¶95

Cons:quently, the Writ Appeal fails and is

¶96

accordingly disn issed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶97

A.5 s r;equel, miscelianeous applications pending, if

¶98

any, in this Writ Appeal, shali stand closed.

¶99

¶100

SD/- M. MANJULA DEPUTISEGISTRAR sEcitK oFFtcER

¶101

//rRUE coPY//

¶102

To,

¶103

One CC to DEP JTY SOLICITOR GENERAL^{OF INDIA} [OPUC]

¶104

1 2 One CC to SRI A K JAYAPRAKASH^RAOAdvocate IOPUCI 3 Two CCs to GP t:OR REVENUE ,^{HighCourt for the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶105

4 Two CD Copies EDS GJP .J

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 3t12t 2022

JUDGMENT

WA.No.441 of 20ZZ

€ STAI
qA
o
,.) 13 Jril ?$n il
i"'
.]..-,|/
. ' -l i".-.r,,r-'; ': J,r../
....:-,---.-:.-.

¶113

DISMISSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶114

n
0
{\1 \t'

Union of India v. R Ramaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. R Ramaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Babu Rao, Vs Airports Authority of India, and Ano.

M/s.Lns Infrastructures Vs The State of Telangana

M/S. Sonath Wood Industries and 5 Others Vs Tax Recovery OFFICER-11, RANGE-11

Muktha Bai , Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Vanjari Eswar Vs The State of Telangana, And 2 Others

P.Sandeep Vs Dr.Ntr University of Health Sciences, Ap, Vijayawada