Dismissed

Kethireddy Jayamma v. The Government of India

Telangana HC5 Jun 2023WP/12301/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a declaration of illegal action and release of a freedom fighter family pension under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Scheme. The Court held the petition infructuous as the petitioner's claim was already rejected via a dated 25.07.2011 order, directing the petitioner to file a separate appeal against that rejection.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to take appropriate steps against the order dated 25.07.2011.

Kethireddy Jayamma Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s61

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

IVONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12301 OF 2023

¶7

Between

¶8

Kethireddy Jayamma, S/o. Late Kethireddy Ram Reddy, Age. 77 years, Occ. Nil,Rl/o Neilikuduru Village and [t4andal, lvlahabubabad District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Government of lndia, rep. by its Under Secretary to the Government of lndia,2nd Floor, NDCC-Il Buildings, Jail Singh Road, New Delhi 110 003.

¶12

2 The Joint Secretary,Ministry of Home Affairs (FF Division),, Lok Naik Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi 1^'10 001 .

¶13

3 The Principal Secretary to Government,, Revenue (FF-lll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

4 The District Collector,, Mahabubabad

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in not considering the claim^{of the petitioner for} grant of pension under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme as^illegal, arbitrary and violative of^principles of natural^{justiceand consequently directthe} respondents no. 1to 3 to^release of^{freedom fighter pensionunder} "swatantra Sainik Samman" from Central Revenue^{vide Governmentof lndia} order No.1 12I8056/97-FF(HC)(A)-3^{dated 19-07-2005 and also revised check list} recommended for family^{pension as per the guidelines to the petitioner in the} interest of^justice.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

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 respondents No. 1 to 4 to consider representation of the^petitioner dated -02-2023 for the claim of the^petitioner for^grant of^pension under "Swatantra Sainik Samman Scheme" pending disposal of the writ petition and pass.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. SREENIVASA RAO RAVULAPATI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1& 2 : Ms. L PRANATHI REDDY, Sr SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 :GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR lVRIT ON No.123Ol ot 2023 ORDER:

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms' L. Pranathi Reddy, rearned senior Standing counsel for the central Government, appearing ror respondent Nos. I and 2. 2 This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No. 1 rn not considering the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension under Swatantra Sainik Samman pension Scheme (SSS Pension Scheme), AS illegal and arbitrary.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that her late husband was a Freedom Fighter and he was granted pension under SSS Pension Scheme uide order No.112l8056/97-FF(HC)(A)-(3), dated 19.O7.2OO5, and after his demise on 12.O3.2010, the petitioner claims to have submitted an application for grant of Family Pension and on consideration of the said application, the District Collector, Warangal, had recommended for grant of Freedorn- Fighter Family Pension by re-verihcation of the Freedom Fighters Family Pension through letter uide Rc.No.A3/565Ol2OlO, dated 11.11.2010. In spite of the said

¶25

recommcndation^{said to have beenmade l-'y rcspondetrtNo 4'} thc case^{of the} Pettttoner^{isnot being consider<:dbY thc} rcsPondellts.

¶26

When the^{matter istaken up forconsideration'} Ms. L.^{Pranathi Reddy, learnedSenior S'uandingCounsel fcr} Central^{Government, represented that the husband. r'rf the} petitioner himself^{was never.granted any pension under the SSS} PerrsiorrSclremeandtheclaimofthepetitionerforgrantof Family l-'ension^{under the saidscheme was also rejected14'} respondent No. I^{uide orderNo.112/8056/97-FF(HC), dated} 25.07.2011 and the said order^{was also communicatedto the} petitioner and ptaced a copy of the said ordcr before this Court, rvhile furnishing the same to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶27

From a per-usal of the said order, dated 25.07.201 1, it is noticed that the claim of the petitioner was aiready rejected blr respondent No.1 as early as ctr25.07.207L.

¶28

In the light of the above, the relief sought for in the present writ petition has become infructuous and unless and unrir the petitioner takes sreps for questioning the said rejeCtiOn

¶29

.,/"'

¶30

order, dated 25.O7.2011, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in this writ petition.

¶31

7 . Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberg, to the petitioner to take appropriate steps against the order, dated 25.07.2O1l, as may be advised, in accordance with larv. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶33

To,

¶34

SD/- P. PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// sEcTloN drrtcen

¶35

One CC to SRl. SREENIVASA^{RAO RAVULAPATI, Advocate[OPUC]} 2. One CC to Ms. L PRANATHI^{REDDY,Sr SC FOR CENTRAL GOW'[OPUC]}

¶36

¶37

Two CD Copies

SB GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510612023

ORDER

TArc
1
q 2
oJ 19 Ju\l ts8
(-)
,l
Ys* ,tz/
n
<br>

¶43

WP.No.12301 ot²⁰²³

¶44

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶45

;;il;f Sru,v...,tx

Kethireddy Jayamma v. The Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kethireddy Jayamma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tadi Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Abdul Mateen Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. J.P. Pharmacy, Vs The I.C.I.C.I Bank

Khairunnissa Begum Vs The Regional Pass port office

Panditi Jyosthna Vs The State of Telangana