The High Court · 2025

THE HONOU RABLE SRI JUSTTCE J. SREENTVAS RAO UIRIT PETITIO N No. 2L592 oI 2OL2 ORDER: When the matter is taken up for hearing' Smt. N.V.R. Rajyalakshmi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India, submits that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by common order dated 27 'O4 '2012 passed by this Court in W.P'No.30769 of 2OI2 andbaLch' The above said submission is not disputed by Smt. Katyani, learned counsel representing Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner' In view of the above said submission, the writ petition is dismissed in terms of common order dated 27.04.2012 passed in W.P.No.30769 of 2Ol2 and batch. Miscellaleous petitions pend,ing, if any, shall stand closed' No order as to costs. ,TRUE COPY// SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR R& TIdN O FFICER SEC To,

1. One CC to SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SMT N.V.R.RAJYALAKSHMI, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies t (Along with the copy of order daled 27 .04.2012, in W.P.No.3O769 of 2012) BSR GJP Iw HIGH COURT DATED: 0410312025 v -.n 4 .a \-1 >- ORDER WP.No.21592 of 2012 '+ t 10 SEP 2E c) i * r) CSn,r r C tr-') DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS a{ a\ 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA W.P.Nos.30769, 34587 of 2011 and 4213 of 2012 Common order: 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. 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. 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 ot 2011 had participated in the Liberation Struggle of the Nizam State of Hyderabad during the years 1947-48. It 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 'r 3 petitioners had applied for grant of pension under " Swatanta Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980'. ll is tlre case of the petitioners that after thorough verification, thelr l[ts 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 07-11-2009 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 10-04-2()10 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 applicatio rs is highly discriminatory. Hence these Writ Petitions. Heard the learned Counsel on either t;ide. Perused the material on record carefully. Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions, contends thi:t earlier the 4 respondent had granted pension to the applicants from the date I 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. t-lNtON OF tNDtAl and in GUDA TARAMANI v. IJNION OF |NDA2 wherein directions were given to the respondents to reconsider their applications for sanction of pension from the date of their applications. 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 ' zot t 1e; at-o +sz 'zorq6; eLo to l 5 effect from the date of the decision of the compr:tent 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, .he petitioners failed to produce the evidence in proof of their underground suffering as prescribed under the " Swatanta Sitinik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 She therefore ass€ rted that the petitioners are not entitled to grant of pension frcrm the date of their applications. ln support of her contentions she placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in UNION OF IND|A v. GNESH CHANDRA DOLAP and uNtOl'l OF \NDIA v. KAUSHALAYA DEVI- A careful reading of the impugned s;anction order demonstrates that the claims of the petitioners we re 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 br/ other central freedom fight pensioners, recommendation of the State Government and that of Screening Committer; of Eminent 'it99t; to scc z8o ' (2oo?) 9 scc 525 /.. 6 Freedom Fighters. Therein, it was categorically indicated to the following effect: "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'. ln Guda Taramani's case (referred supra), considering the chequered history of the case of the petitioner therein, this Court inter alia held thus: Unless 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......" 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. i i 1 ln Yelmareddy Suryamma 's case (r,-.fened supra), this Court having been regard to the facts and circumstances of that case, inter alia, held thus: j " 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 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 whother the evidence produced by the claimarrts is a probable one that lends credence to the claim made or not and on that basis the decision should be rested." It is relevant to note that in that case also relevant evidence as prescribed under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, .l 980 was produced. Taking the relevant criteria into account, this Court directed the tespondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner from th€, date of the application for sanction of pension. As clearly stated above, the petitiorrers tn these cases failed to produce necessary evidence ils prescribed under the Swatantra Sainik Samman pension S cheme, 1 9g0 and the respondent on the basis of the relaxed eligibility and evidinciary requirement in relaxation of the nornral procedure 8 had accorded sanction of pension to the petitioners. Once the I I 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 pa(icularly from the date of their applications. ln UNION OF INDIA v. GNESH CHANDRA DOLAI (3 supra) the Supreme Court in para-4 ol the judgment held as under: " 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." I I 9 tn UNION OF INDIA v. MUSHALAYA DEV| (4 supra) the Supreme Court held as follows: "..... ln other words, the claim was not allowed on the basis of jail certificate produced by the claimant but on the basis of oral stakrment of some other detenu. Hence, we arr-. of the opinion that. the pension should be granted from the date of the order and not lrom the date of the application." Further this Court is conscious tha t payment of pension to the freedom fighters cannot be treaterl as a charity or bounty. lt is a privilege conferred on them in .ecognition of their selfless sacrifices for the cause of the narion. Genuine freedom fighters deserve to be treated with reverence, 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 which is in fact rntended to mitigate the sufferings of those who had given their all for the country in the honour of its need. Keeping the above avowed object n 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 l0 I I I i 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. ln the back drop of the facts and circumstances of these cases, ldo not find any merit in these cases which are liable to be dismissed. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed in consequence. There shall be no order as costs. 21-04-2012 Murthy/Msnr. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. /