Dismissed

Smt. Vasireddy Janikamma Janaki v. Union of India

Telangana HC22 Jun 2022WP/476/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition concerning the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Yojana. The court held that the scheme is policy-based, not statutory, and prevents arrears payment from the date of death, allowing it only from the application date.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Arrears of dependent family pension sanctioned from the date of application only, not from the date of death.

Smt. Vasireddy Janikamma Janaki Vs Union… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:476 oF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt- Vasireddy Janikamma J_anaki, Wo Late Vasireddy Muralidhar Rao Aged 8'1 years occ.house hold r/o Gandugulapadu (v) Wyra 1lrv1) Khammam Districi.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 Union of lndia, Ministry of Home Affairs Freedom Fighters Division, NDCC_Il Building, Jai Singh Road New Delhi, rep. by Deputy-Secretary to Govt. of lndia

¶12

2 The Accounls Officgr,-Pay and Accounts Office (pension and tvlisc.) 2/10, Jamnagar House HMA, New Delhi .

¶13

3 The Central Pension Accounting Office, Represented by Chief Accounts Officer Trikoot-ll_Complex, Bhikaji Cama pblace Behtnd part nayaih r.egency, New Delhi-^'l 1 0066.

¶14

4 Ifrg 9!ate^{Bank of lndia, Centralized pension processinq} Centre Reo. bv its Chief General [/anager. 1st floor, SCAB Building LHO iomptex, koii,^-'- Hyderabad, Telangana State 500 095

¶15

The Branch Manager, State Bank of lndia Wyra Branch, at Wyra Khammam District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in lhe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hagh court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the letter No. 1i2t1813193-FF HC) dated 5/912021 issued by the respondent no.1 and not paying the arrears of pension for 33 months from 5-12-2018 (to the extent t went againsl the petitioner) as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequenfly direct the responderyts to pay arrears of pension from sl12/2018 to till 619t2o21 (33 months) i.e. from the date of death of husband of petitioner.

¶18

--7

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶20

F'etition 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 respondents to pay arrears of^pension frcm 511212018 to 51912O21⁽³³ monthsl to the petitioner i,e. from the date of death of husband of^petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of^justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. V. HANUMANTHA RAO

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SMT. M. V. RAJYALAXMI REPTNG (ASSGI)

¶23

Gounsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5: --

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.476 of 2022

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to^{issue Writ of} Mandamus declaring the letter No.ll2l1813/93-FF^{(HC) dated5-9-2021} issued b1' the respondent No. I and not^{paying the arrearsof pensionlor 33} months fiorn 5- l2-2018^(to the^extent it^{wentagainst the petitioner)as} illegal, arbitrary, violative of^{principles trf naturaljustice and consequently} to direct the respondents to^pay arears of^{pension from 5-12-2018 to} 6-9-2021⁽³³ months) i.e. from the^{dateofdeath ofhusbandofpetitioner}

¶30

fleard the learned counsel for^{thepetitioner and} S rlrt M.V.Rajl'alaxmi representing^{the tearnedAsst. Solicitor Generalol} lndia lbr respondcnts No. I to^3.

¶31

i.l The learned counsel for the^{petitioner subrnittedthat the} petitioner's husband participated^{in the FreedomStruggle during the year} Lg41-48 tbr rrerger ol^{erstwhileHyderabadState into IndianUnion andas} per the policy olGovernment^{of India "swatantra SainikSamman Pension"} was sanctioned to petitioner's husband^{and he had drawn the said pcnsion} till his death. The petitioner's^{husbanddied on 5-12-2018and the petitioner} was the nominee to her husband^{and accordingly she applied lbr f-amily} pension.^-['he petitioner submitted an application^{datedI I -2-20 l9 and}

D..GRR.J

f,mished the entire information by enclosing the death certificate of her hrrsband and alr relevanr documents to the respondent no.5 on rr-2-20r9. After verification, the respondenl nos.3 and 4 forwarded the application of the petitioner to respondent no. I on 24_2_2020 and thereafter the re'spondent no'r granred pension vide Ierrer r12/rgr3rg3 - FF (HC) dated 6-')-2021' The petitioner was drawing famiry pension with effect from 6-9-2021.

¶36

3'2 The rearned counsel ror the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner requested to grant pension f'rorn the date ofdeath ofher husband as his pension was stopped after his death im,ediately, but the respondent Nos.l and 2 granted pension to her tiorn 6_9_2021 onwards only. The petrtioner had submitted a represenration dt. rg-9-202r to the respondents requesting them to rerease arrears fbr ir months i.e. from 5-12-20rg to 4-9"2021 i'e. from the date or dearh of her husband to 4-g-2021. The resp'ondent no'5 had forwarded her apprication dated r1-2-20r9 on the same day to the respondent No.4 along with all relevant documents. The respondent no. I had senr a letrer vide No. ll2/tgl3/g3_FF (HC) dated 6-9-2021. As per the procedure. the petitioner had subrnitted the application within 6 monrhs of' the dare of death of her husband. The petitioner was entitled ror farnily pe'nsion rrorn -5-r2-20 1g not from

Dt-CRR,J

6-92021, thus the respondents had to pay arrears^for 33^{months. Despite} the representation of the petitioner dated l8-9-2021 and legal^noticedated l6- 10-202 I , the rcspondents had not^paid the^{arrears, hence prayedto allow} the petition.

¶41

4.1 The lcarned counsel Smt. M.V.Rajyalaxmi^{representingthe} Assistant Solicitor General of India submitted^that in^{1969, a Scheme} known as "Ex-Andarlan Political Prisoners^{Pension Scheme"was} launched. Under the said scheme,^{pension was sanctioned only to those} freedom tighters^u'ho had suflered^{irnprisonment in the Cellular Jail,Port} Blair (Andarnan lslands) Iirr a minirnum^{periodof fiveyears. Then in 1972,} on the occasion of 25'h anniversary^{(Silver Jubilee)} of^{Independence,a} regular Frecdom l:ighters' Pension Scheme^{was introduced coveringother} categories ol the fieedom tighters. Subsequently,^{in 1980,the scheme was} liberatized and ',vas rcnamed as^{"swatantrataSainik SammanPension} Scheme" and tht' schctnc^{was fuftherrenamed in the year 2Ol7 as} "swatantrata Sainik Sarnman Yojana"^{(herein after called as SSS Yojana)} The Governrnent o1'India^{rer"ised the Policy Guidetines to be followedby} all concerned, including^{the banks,while disbursing the pensionto the} Central Irrcedorrt^{lrighters pcnsiotrers videletterNo. 45103/201O-p1:(l'})}

¶42

¶43

D.CRlt.J

¶44

dated 06'0g'2014' Crause 5.2 and clause 5.2.2 0r the above said revised guidelines were relevant to the issue involved in the present petition.

¶45

4.2 The husband of the petitioner, Lare Shri Vasireddy Muralidhar Rao was a recipient of sSS pension ti, his death on 05.r2.2org.After the death of the petitioner's husband, the crairn of the petitioner for transfer of SSS dependent pension was received by the Ministry through CppC, SBI, Hyderabad reuer dated 06'0g'20r9. The cppC, SBI in their retter had not mentioned the actual date of receipr or the application or'the petitioner to the bank' therefore' the craim or the petitioner was presumed to have been received after the rapse of 6 months frorn rhe date of death of the originar pensioner' Accordingry the petitioner's craim rvas considered under the provisions of crause 5'2 0f the revised poricy/guidcrines dated 06.0g.20r4 and after receipt ofnecessary documents fiorn thc petitioner as we, as the verification report from the State covernmcnr ,ide retter dated 26.07.2021, famiry pension was sanctioned in the narne of'the petitioner vide retter dated 06'0g'2021. The petitioner crairned ro have subrnitted her apprication at the SBI wyra Branch on Ir'02.20 19 i.e. we, within the prescribed period of 6 months from the date of dearh.f.her husband. The CppC, SBI yide their lefter dated 05.05.101: inf'orrnccl rhat titc- application of the petrtroner was received at the SBI W_r.ra Branch on I I .01.1019 and the said

¶46

D..CRR,J 5

¶47

fact was omitted by the bank previously by mistake. On receipt of the above inlormation from the CPPC, SBI, the claim of petitioner was reviewed under the pro',,isions ol clause 5.2.2 of the revised policy/guidelines dated 06.08.2014 and arrears of dependent family pension had been sanctioned in the name of petitioner vide letter dated 18.05.2022 with effect lronr 11.02.2019 i.e. date of application to 05.09.2021. It had also been clarit'icd in the Sanction order dated 18.05.2022 that there was no pror ision in the guidelines for payment of arrears of dependent lamill pcnsion tl'om the date of death of the original freedom fi ghter pensioner.

¶48

4.3 The leamed counsel lor respondents relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi lligh CoLrrl in Bhagwani Vs UOI, WP (C) No. 7874 of 2020 wherein it rvas held that the dependent pension had to be paid from the date of application and not ll'orn the date of death of the pensioner and the respondents haci rightlr nai(l thc pcnsion to the petitioner from the date of receipt of application ol'thc petitioner. l'he Delhi High Court also held that it was not a pension linked to service rendered by the deceased husband ol the petitioner, bLrt pcnsion in terrns ol the policy framed by the Government ol India. As such the action ol the rcspondent for granting

¶49

¶50

wp N",?;.1!;i

¶51

pension from the date of application was just, proper and in accordance with the guidelines laid down.

¶52

4.4 The leamed counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'bre Apex court in covemment of India & ors vs sitakant s' Dubhashi & Anr' (2020) 3 scc 297 wherein it was herd that "When a benefit is granted in relaxation of scheme, it is open for the Govemment to put conditions for eligibility,,. l{ence the policy for grant of sSs pension framed by the cor undc'r it-s discrction was sufficientry -'l "rv i-rdtlll l required to be fulfilled by the claim an r o f S t sss Yojana and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶53

5.^perused the record. The SSS yojana is a document based yojana introduced by the Govemment of India and not a Statute/ Act or a pension scheme' As such' the decisions rerated to thc sarnc shall be at the instance of the Govemment of India and the pension cannot be clairned as a matter of right contrary to the poricy provided. The t enn r irs sl lrr penslon associated with S,ss Yojana is not intended ,. ^^^{^^-^-} t be construe<'i as a 'petrsion scheme' akin to the pension schemes a*o r armed forces personnel/ retired Central/State Covsrnrnsnl employees. Therefore, the polic_v for grant of SSS pension which is framed by the covemment orrndia urrder irs criscrerion (rbr wrrich

D.-GRR,l

I I

the Gol is fully empowered ro do so), is arso enrirred to put conditions for its eligibility as per the judgmenr ol the Hon'ble Apex Court in Govemment of India v. Sitakant S. Dubhashi. The petitioner is required to fulfil the said conditions while seeking eligibility under the Scheme.

¶58

Clause 5.2 of the SSS pension scheme l9g0 is extracted for considering the issue on hand.

¶59

5.2 Transfcr of Pension b Slxtula Datryhters.

¶60

'.l.!fter tle dearh o/.the pcn:ionur (urhcrhar jicedom f ghter himself or his spouse) tht trunsfer of pension ti rhe spouse/daughter will onl.t, ht tttttsideretl iJ .she appties for tronsfer of pension within 6 nnnths of the deith. Application received o/itr 6 months shall not be considered by the Bank but rtlcrrcd to the Ministrv. The Ministry shall then ktke u ,t,ietr. .tvhether lo allow dependent pension or nol or v,hcther any ttrraars are lo be paid"

¶61

The procedure for submitting the apprication is prescribed under clause

¶62

5.2.1. As per clause 5.2.2 the depende-nr pcnsion shall be paid from the date of application by the spouse/daughtcr ard nor fiorn the date of death of the pensioner.

¶63

As seen from the lacrs ol this case, the petitioner made the application at the SBI, wyra Branch on lr-l-20 l9 i.e within the prescribed period of6 months from the date ol'dcath ofher husband on 5-r2-201g. As per clause 5.2.2, thc depende-nt pension shall be paid lrom the date of

¶64

¶65

8 D..CRA.J

¶66

application by the spouse and not from the date of death of the pensioner. The respondents vide letter dated rg-5-2022 sanctioned rhe arrears or the dep,3ndgnl lamily pension to the petitioner lrom lr-z-2olg to 5-9-2021. It was informed to her that the competent authority approved grant of arrears of flrmily pension to the petitioner from ll_2_201g to 5_9_2021 @ ol Rs. 26,0001- per month arong with Dearness Rerief (DR) @ admissibre and as revi:;ed from time to time under the SSS yojana, 19g0. As such, the resprndents sanctioned the pension to the petitioner with -erfect rrom ll-2-2019 that is lora period of 3l months out or33 monrhs dcnranded by her and the same is considered as proper. The petitioner is .ot entitred for arrears from the date ofdeath ofher husband on 5_12_201g ro Il_2_201g. The judgments of the Hon'bre Supreme court and the High Coun or Delhi reliec by the leamed counsel for the respondents cited above also stren5lhened the said proposition. As such the writ petition fi led bv the petiti.ner is considered as devoid of merit and hence, is liabre to be dismi:;sed.

¶67

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Thcre shail be ,o order as to c osts 'l'he rniscellaneous petitions pending, ilany. shall srand closed.

¶68

s t)/_ c. s ttit:stla ASSTSTANT necrsrnli //TRUE COPY// ,.- . 1., SECTION OFFICER

¶69

To,

¶70