N.Boomaiah & Anr. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

During long pendency of the writ petition (ten years), the respondents have not bothered to file counter-affidavit to controvert the averments contained in the affidavit of Sri Nasam Bhoomaiah who has undertaken the last journey and his widow Smt N.Ramavva is left to fight this petty legal battle. Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy argued the action of respondents to recover the amount of pension paid under the State Scheme should be declared illegal, arbitrary and unjustified because there is no provision in the sanctions accorded by the State Government and the Central Government that the pension payable under the State Scheme would be recovered in the event of sanction of pension under the Central Scheme. Learned counsel then argued that even if such provision is read implicit in the State Scheme, the respondents cannot recover the amount already paid to late Sri Nasam Bhoomaiah because before deciding to withdraw the benefit of pension payable under the State Scheme, the competent authority did not give him action oriented notice or opportunity of hearing.

The learned Government Pleader relied on Memo No.1428/FF.I/84-1 dated 2-7-1984 sent by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department to District Treasury Officer, Karimnagar requiring the latter to recover the amount paid to the freedom fighter under the State Scheme and argued that the District Treasury Officer did not commit any illegality when he told Sri Nasam Bhoomaiah about recovery of the amount already paid to him. He, however, conceded that before seeking to recover the amount paid to Sri Nasam Bhoomaiah, the concerned authority did not give him notice or opportunity of hearing. I have thoughtfully considered the respective submissions. Although the writ petition is not articulately drafted, from the tenor of the affidavit filed by Shri Nasam Bhoomaiah, it can be gathered that he has questioned the action of the respondents by describing it as without jurisdiction and totally arbitrary and facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to read the plea of violation of rules of natural justice as an inherent ground which is available to the petitioner for seeking nullification of the arbitrary and capricious action taken by the Secretary, Revenue Department and District Treasury Officer, Karimnagar.

In a case like the present one, the Court is entitled to and is also duty bound to construe the pleadings in a broader perspective and modulate the relief irrespective of frame of the prayer clause. It hardly needs an emphasis that the power vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wide and pervasive and the Court can reach injustice irrespective of the status of the person who seeks to perpetuate injustice and the degree of his authority. A careful reading of G.O.Ms.No.2432, the relevant portions of which have been extracted hereinabove, show that while sanctioning pension under the State Scheme, the Government of Andhra Pradesh did not indicate that the amount of pension payable under that State Scheme will be withdrawn and the amount already paid will be recovered if pension is sanctioned to the beneficiary under the Central Scheme. Likewise, perusal of communication dated 2-8-1997 shows that sanction accorded by the Central Government for payment of pension did not envisage withdrawal of the pension payable under the State Scheme.

In the absence of any such enumeration, it is impossible to find any legitimacy in the action of the Revenue Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh to instruct the District Treasury Officer to recover the element of pension already paid to Sri Nasam Bhoomaiah under the State Scheme. In my considered view, the direction given by the Revenue Secretary was without jurisdiction and the District Treasury Officer committed grave illegality when he took steps for recovery of the amount of pension already paid to the petitioner. I am further of the view that the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department did not have the jurisdiction, power or authority to direct District Treasury Officer to recover the amount paid to Sri Nasam Bhoomaiah under the State Scheme. Undisputedly, the pension was sanctioned to Sri Nasam Bhoomaiah in accordance with the policy framed by the State Government. It has not been shown to the Court that the policy to which reference has been made in G.O.Ms.No.2432 and pursuant to which pension was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner had been modified, amended or withdrawn.

Therefore, Secretary concerned could not have suo motu instructed District Treasury Officer to recover the element of State pension already paid to Shri Nasam Bhoomaiah. The casualness with which the respondents treated late Nasam Bhoomaiah is evinced from the fact that before seeking to recover the amount of pension already paid to him, neither of the respondents bothered to give him notice and opportunity of hearing. In my considered view, even if the policy framed by the State Government for payment of pension to the freedom fighters had been amended and a provision had been made that the State Pension would be recovered in the event of sanction of pension under the Central Scheme, such an amendment could not have been applied with retrospective effect and, in any case, no recovery could have been effected from the amount payable to Shri Nasam Bhoomaiah without giving him an action oriented notice and opportunity of hearing.