High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ol the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pi"riuJ to i..re a writ, order of Direction more particularly one in the nalure of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the iepies.ntation of ihe petitioner dated- 2o-o1-2o17 sanction of Freedom Fighter Pension'beingalegalheirofpetitionersfatherLate.MD.Khan,(FreedomFighter) i.- O"i.g as il"legal] arbitrary and unco nstitutional and consequently direct the "consider thl petitioners representation dated- 20-01-2017 tor ,L.poni"nt. to sanction or Freedom Fighter Pension, being a legal heir of petitioners father Late' Md. Khan, (Freedom Fighter) l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO :5491 0F 20171 PetitionunderSectionl5,lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 19 9I9"t in" i".pona"nts to consider the petitioner's representation dated: 20-0 1-2o17 'tor ianction of Freedom Fighter Pension, being a legal heir of petitioner's father Late' Md. Khan (Freedom Fighter) Counsel for the lD:t tioner: SRl. pENJURI VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI cADl PRAVEEN KUMA.R Dy. SOLICITOR GENEIIAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Ri;sporrdent Nos.2 to 4: Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made ttr: following: ORDER r : i 1 SK, J W .P.No.4547 of 2Ol7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH IVRIT PETITION No.4547 of 2OL7 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 20.01.2017 for sanction of freedom fighter pension to the petitioner being legfu heir of his father late Md. Khan (Freedom Fighter) as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel representing the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondent No.l and learned Assistant Government Pleader . for Revenue for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of petitioner late Md. Khan was a freedom Iighter and the respondent No.3-the Revenue Divisional Ofhcer has submitted a letter to the District 2 SK, J W.P No.l547 of 2017 Collector recommending sanction of freer,lr:m fighter pension 1,r the petitioner being legal heir cf ate Md. Khan unrl:r Swathanthra Sainik pension, Lr)g2 by his letter Nc.l?c.No.D/953/2OO2 and the sarne l.rending. He fulthr:t srrbmits that though the repres,entation of the petirticlrer. dated 2O.OI.2OlT is pending re:ore the respondr:-" lVo.3, no action has been:.rk,rn and requesteC to direct the respondents to con sirler. the said reprt,r.; en lation and pass appropriate orrlr:rr. as per law.

4. Le altr:d counsel representing the learnel l)eputy Solicitor ( ieneral of India based on thr: c.ounter averments in ltara Nos.7 and g submits that tee father of petition:r late Mohd. Khan died on 1g.04.19!.rO and the Ciovtirrroent vide Lr.No. l7423/Fl IIIl2OOg dated 06 ()i.2tlO9 has recommended for rej<.ction of the claim. llhr: submits that as the freedonr .ighter pension u,.r r; not sanctioned to the father of pretitioner, neither th,: rr other of petitioner nor peti tiorr er is 3 SK, J W.P.No.4547 of 2Ol7 entitled for grant of freedom fighter dependent pension under the SSS Pension Scheme. She further submits that as per the direction of this Court in W.P.No.2846 of 2008 hled by the mother of petitioner, the respondent No.1 vide letter dated 29.O9.2OO8 requested the State Government to send a fresh verihcation report followed by several reminders, but the State Government has not sent the said report regarding her claim and as such her claim was rejected by the Ministry vide letter dated 25.03.2009 and thereafter, the State Government vide letter dated 06.06.2009 informed that after conducting re- verification, the individua-l has not produced any documentar5r evidence with regard to proof of age and therefore, her case was not recommended. She further submits that the representation of the petitioner dated 20.O1.2017 was not received by the offrce of the respondent No.l and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 4 , a *. OaOr.riS'r/ 5' A.f tr. hearing both sides a,d perr-rsr,Ll of the record. tlris Court is of the considered vierv that as the father ;1 the petitioner Sri Mohd. Khiut was not . sanctiorr,:d lieedom Iighter pension during his life time, the guesrion of gralt of freedom fighter dt:pendent pensirtr:r 1o fhs petitioner or his mother clot.s r:ot arise. The c,a s : ol- mother of the petitioner \^.zLs a lready rejecte'd 1ty .:he competent authority on 11..j.Ct3.2009. The petit oner without disclosing the same l.il:d instant writ pr:titi: n. Moreover, there is no polic-1. Ior 1,1ralt of freedorn Iishrer dependent pension to tht: son of freedom f;;1rtr:r after demise of freedom fighter. tn view of the seun:, there a_re no merits in the wtil l)etition and the szr lre is liable to be dismissed as <le.,.oid of merits.

6. Acr:orcl ngly, the order as to r: tsls. Writ Petition is dismLssed. No 5 SK, J W.P.No.4547 of 2017

7. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand dismissed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- A. SRINIVASA REDDY A SI ANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. PENJURI VENUGOPAL Advocate 2. One CC to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at PUC] Hyderabad. [OUTI

4. Two CD Copies KKS GJP EAL HIGH COURT DATED:041A3t2025 ORDER WP.No.4547 of ',2017 c 61"';:' trl i1 t^ S ],A CH f-O 7 c .t DISMISSING I'HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C;OSTS l-./Hv- u\ollz-5