The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI UJWAL BABU FOR SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: M/s' K'MANI DEEPIKA The Court made the following: ORDER l t THE TTONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO IIRIT PETITION No. 34767 0F zGtt'.1 ORDER: - l'j ri ; r rit petition is Iiled seeking the follo.i,in1J relief: to issue writ or direction preferably $,rit o. n_ aldamus d:r,ar-r.p1 lhe action of the r in not grantilll p.:nsion to tlr,. rrr ti,)rer from ,n. oa,,tt"oo'otnt of his application und rl "s watantra S.i; i : l,rrrrman p.rr"ioa 1980" and granted pern, ion only ""r \\r r.r , l .(.1 -rom 22.o2.2oroleme illegal' arbitrary' (liscrrn]in. tor]- and \ ii)lrt ,,, ,)[ prirciples of natu rc ir,) r r , rr to rerease "..."."':t1;::;; ,: ;. ;H:::' ;": ,,:: datt' c I I ris tpplication i.e., from 199g onwards under .he € 3ve said Sr'), I t I 2 . Mr-s Ii N,lali Deepika, learned Standing ( lou nsel for the respond:nr, ;ubmitted that the issue raised in tlris r,,rit petition is squar c.J,r :or.ered by the orders passed by thi,; Court in W.P,No.Ii(.r7( ) cf 20I1 and batch, d,ated 2Z.O4.it()|i,, and also placed a C:)l) . .lf the said order. a.) The s,: trl srrb6i5sior, 6." not been disputec ry Mr. Ujwal :runsel representing Mr. Kowturu pirvirn Kumar, ;:1 lbr the petitioner. Babu, learnr, learned crtu r

4. In vierr.,. c f the same, the writ petition 1S disr nissed 1n terms of thi, r, .rle,rs clated 22.O4.2012 passed rn ri,/.p.rVo.30769 of 20Il arcj ir, tclr. No order as to costs. 1 \ J I Z Miscellaneous petitions, pending if airy ' sha1l stand clo sed. { To //TRUE COPY// SD/- K, AMMAJI A A SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 2 J Two CD Copies One CC to SRI KOW TURU PAVAN KUIVAR, A One CC to M/s. K.MA Ntt OEEPtKA, Advocate [O (Ai;";;itl;;opy of the common order dt: 27 '04'2012 in W'P'No'30769 ol 2O11 and batch) cate [OPUC] PSK GJP HIGH CO['RT DATED:03 i03,t2025 ( ORDER WP.No.347ti7 of 2011 t? i'l I ,-) t,t S '4r 1 e ilrr' 0: ,iiji 2025 r)r a A('\^,.. ,- DISMISSING Tfl-IE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSiTS v THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA w.p N .l .30769,3 587 t 2/01 and 491 4 1 t201) 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 ol 201.1, 4213 ot 2012,tirsl petitioner in Writ Petition No. 30769 of 201 1 and the hus;bands of the second and third petitioners; in Writ .1 had participated in the Petition rlo. 30769 of 201 Liber,aticr, Sruggle of the Nizam State of Hyrierabad durin,; thi yr:ars 1947-48. lt has been averred lhi;rt the Governnre nt of lndia had formulated a schrlrrle viz., "Swatanl:a' Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, it980'to provide 'irancial assistance to the freedom f igt'ters. Accord r <1 y, the petitioners had applied for glrart of pension rnder " Swatanta Sainik Samman ,)etsion Scheqe '9t'0". ll is the case of the petitioners thal after thorouql- r'erification, their IDs were called for through the letter date!l 21 .5.2005.11 is the complaint of the petitioners that deslr l: their applications were made in the year 1997 and the r ldl; were called for in the year 20)5 the respondr:'t had sanctioned pension with effect frorr 07- 11-2009 rt rospect of petitioner No.1, from 22-10-,2010 and 13-Cz. 2010 respectively in respect of petitiorer f,los.2 and ;Q r VV.P.No.30769 ol 2011; with effect from 1)-04- 2010 in rrsp,-.ct of petitioners in W.P.No34587 of ;2011 and with e ,'fect from 24-01 -201 irr respect of petitioner in W.P.No 4213 of

2012. It has bee,rr fr-rrther averred that in all the previous cilses f reedom f r lhtr>rs were granted pension from the late of their applications ancl denial of same benetit to the petitioners herein trom the date of their respective applications is highly discriminatory' Hence these Writ Petitions' Heard the learned Counsel on either side' Perused the material on record carefully' Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar' learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions' contends that earlier the respondent had granted pension to the applicants fromthedateoftheirapplicationsandassuchdenying the said benefit to the petitioners herein is not sustainable' Further, he pointed out that no reasons were assigned for not granting pension trom the date of their applications' ln support of his contentions' he placed reliance on the ol this Court in YELMAREDDY SIJRYAMMA v' UNTON OF tNDtAll)and in GUDA TARAUIIAN| v' ttNloN OF lNDlAg wherein directions were given to the respondents to reconsider their applications for sanction ol pension from the date of their applications' fudgments On the other hand' Smt'S'Nanda' learned standing counsel for the respondent-Union of lndia submitti]l that as the petitioners were granted persir:n by giving b:rrefit of doubt, they are not entitled t,: ,:laim pensior ron the date of their applications. fltre also submrtterj thet in the sanction order it has been c early stated th:1 if the claims had been considered baseC on the relar> r;J eligibility and evidentiary requirernr.,nfs in relaxatior of the normal eligibility and evicertiary requirenrrtrts ,)f the scheme and basing on the certificrates given b,y tle competent authority as mentionerJ in the impugne,r orcler, the pension would be giver to the petitioner:; crcspeclively with effect from the date o1 the decisicrn :f th: competent authority by giving berret,it of doubt anrl n I ne with the decision of the Apex ()c,Llr. |n SLP (C:) r\rr 2it125 of 1995, dated 24.4.1995 and tjl_p No. 25053 0f' ?95 dated 30.4.1996. She a,so r,ointed out that in the case on han,J, the petitioners i'rtiled to produce the evidence in proof c,f their undergrour rl sitffering as prescribed under the ',swatzinta Sainik Sitrnnao Pension Scheme, /9g0 . She therel,ore asserted t.rrt the petitioners are not entitled to qr;anl of pension Iro.rr the date of their applications. ln suprport.of her contentons she placed reliance on the judgmerls; of the Suorerne Court in UNTON OF INDIA v. GNESH CHANDRA DOLAIil and UNTON OF tNDttt v. KAUSHALAYA DEVP A careful reading of the impugned sanction orderdemonstratesthattheclaimsofthepetitionerswere certificates consideredbasedontherelaxedeligibilityandevidentiary requirements in relaxation of the normal eligibility and evidentiary requirements of the Scheme on the basis of given by other central freedom fight recommendation of the State Government pen sioners, and that of Screening Committee of Eminent Freedom Fighters. Therein, it was categorically indicated to the following effect: "it has been decided that in such cases the SammanPensionwiltbegivenprospectivelywitheffect fromthedateofthedecisionofthecompetentauthorityby giving benefit of doubt'' ln Guda Taramani's case (referred supra)' considering the chequered history ol the case of the petitioner therein, this Court inter alia held thus: "........'...""Unless the veracity ol 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 directeci thr,r first respondr:r t therein to reconsider the case of the o:tiiioner therein 'ri sanction of pension from the date or the applicati()r . lt may be mentioned that in the sirid ::ase, necessil"/ evidence was produced as required rrrdr:r the Swatantrz Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. ln Yelmareddy Suryamma 's case (refi.,rred supra), tr'lili C)ourt having been regard to the far;ts and circunrstar .cel; of that case, inter alia, held thus: " Hence, it is beyond any pale of doubt that the standard which the lVinistry of Home Affairs can look fcr, while dealing with cases for sanclion of Freredom Fighters Pension must not be prc,of beyond doubt like in a criminal car;e. The attempt that should be made is, not to find lacunae or shortcoming rn lhe evidence nor was it proper lo examine the record under a huge magnifying glass. The rational approach s to find as to whether the evidence rroduced by the claimants is a probable :nr> that lends credence to the clairn nade or not and on that basis th e iec;ision should be rested." It is relevant to note that in that case itlso relevant r:iidence as prescribed under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme' 1980 was produced' Taking the relevant criteria into account' this Court directed the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner from the date of the application for sanction of pension. As clearly stated above' the petitioners tn these cases failed to produce necessary evidence as prescribed under the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 and the respondent on the basis of .the relaxed eligibility and evidinciary requirement in relaxation of the normal procedure had accorded sanction of pension to the petitioners' Once the petitioners are found tohavefailedinproducingnecessaryevidencebeforethe respondent, it is not open to them to attribute the delay in sanction of pension to them and more particularly from the date of their aPPlications' ln UNION OF INDIA v' GNESH CHANDRA DOLAT (3 supra) the Supreme Court in para-4 of tie iudgment held as under: " We have heard the learned counsel for the parties' we are ol the view that the ratio in Duli Chand case (1 992) 2 SCC 28) is not applicable to the facts of the t I)rer;ent case. ln Duli Chand case thir; ()cLrrt had by the order dated 16-07-1 990 (lirected the Government of lndia to pa,r I)ension to the petitioners therein w.e.f. 1 - ti-1980. lt was specifically mentioned irr tre order that all the 41 petitioners h;lrl r,rorjuced the relevant docu mer tr; s upporting their claim and keeping irr r iev,, of the facts of these cases pensiorr vras directed to be given w.e.f.1980. lrr tilis case the Government of lndia h;ls; r atergorically stated that the respondents; r'rer,= given benefit of doubt and as such the pension can only be given from tlrer cater of the order." tn UNION OF INDIA v. KAUSHALAYA DEVI (4 supra)tre,Supreme Court held as follows: ' . . . In other words, the claim was n o : .; llorved on the basis of jail certificate :rocluced by the claimant but on tlre rasis of oral statement of some othu'r Jet€ nu. Hence, we are of the opinicrr trat the pension should be granted frorr 'tre date of the order and not from the 'iate of the application." F urther this Court is conscious that payrner-t of pensior tc the freedom fighters cannot be treated ai; a charity or:rrunty. lt is a privilege conferred on thr?n, in recognition of their selfless sacrifices lor the cause of the nation. Genuine freedom fighters deserve to be treated with reverence, respect and honour. At the same time, it is necessary to weed out bogus claims. Othenruise, it would be making a mockery of the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme which is in fact intended 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 in mind and considering the cases ol the petitioners on the touchstone of the law laid down by the Apex Court on the point, as discussed 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 orderr but not from the date of their applications. ln the back droP of the lacts and circumstances of these cases, I do 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' ASFILJT:)SH IVOHtll\lTA, J. 27 -Ct4 .2'i 1 2 Mufthy/Msn. l1I I3l 2011((;) 4tt 187 2010(6 r ALI) ; C (1997) 10 S:a 28r. (2007) I SCa i25 T