HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.2055 of 2007
03.01.2012
R. Ramaiah.
The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India & another.
For the petitioner: Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1 : Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, Asst. Solicitor
General.
For Respondent No.2 : G.P. for Revenue.
? CITATIONS: (2010) 8 SCC 796 C/15
ORDER :
In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the
proceedings, dated 29.06.2006, issued by the 2nd respondent, in Letter
No.1864/FF-II/A2/A2/2006, with a consequential direction to the
respondents to sanction the freedom fighters' pension under the
'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980'.
2. The petitioner, who is aged about 72 years, states in the
affidavit that he was a freedom fighter as he had participated in the
freedom struggle against Nizams for liberation of Hyderabad State
and Goa from Portuguese. It is stated that at a young age, inspired
and attracted by the call given by the freedom fighters, he had
participated in the Hyderabad Liberation struggle and did his best for
liberation of Hyderabad State.
3. During the Silver Jubilee year of independence, a central
scheme for grant of pension to freedom fighters and their eligible
dependants was introduced by the Government of India with effect
from 15th August 1972. The said scheme was further liberalized and
re-named as 'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980' and
is made effective from 1st August 1980. As per the said scheme, all
the persons who had participated in the freedom movement in some
way or the other, are not eligible for pension, but only certain
categories of freedom fighters, who fit into the criteria notified, are
eligible for grant of pension under the above said scheme. Petitioner
had been making applications for grant of above said pension from
1997 onwards, and though the recommendations are in his favour for
grant of pension, he is deprived of the pension only on the ground that
he was below 15 years of age at the time of freedom struggle, as such,
as per the guidelines, his case was not considered.
4. When the petitioner has submitted his representation, inquiries
were conducted and the Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad
District, has addressed a letter, dated 4th December 2002 in letter
No.D5/1520/1999, to the Secretary to Government, Revenue (FF.II)
Department. In the aforesaid letter, it is stated that though the
petitioner was aged below 15 years, as he was inspired by patriotism
and Nationalism, jumped into the freedom struggle and risked his life
and he was also presented a banner as a best Cadet Corp on 27th
January 1958 by Late Sri Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Former Prime
Minister of India. In the aforesaid letter, it is also stated that on the
occasion of Golden Jubilee Celebrations of Hyderabad liberation, held
on 17th September 1998, Sri L.K.Adwani, the Hon'ble Home Minister,
Government of India, has honoured the petitioner as a patriot and
freedom fighter and presented him a memento with a citation in his
honour as a recognition of his active participation in Hyderabad
Liberation struggle. While stating that the petitioner has participated
in the freedom struggle against the Nizam's Feudal during the period
from 15th August 1947 to September 1948 and also participated in
Goa Liberation Struggle in 1955, recommended for grant of pension
by relaxing the age restriction. In this writ petition, it is the case of
the petitioner that there is no such restriction of age in the scheme, but
in view of the guidelines issued by the respondents, though there is an
overwhelming evidence in support of his participation in freedom
struggle for liberation of Hyderabad State and Goa from Portuguese,
he is deprived of pension on untenable grounds.
5. Respondents have filed separate counter affidavits. In the
counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, while giving the salient
features of the scheme in detail and denying the allegations of the
petitioner, it is categorically stated that the Central scheme per se does
not prescribe any minimum age limit for being eligible for grant of
Samman Pension. However, it is unlikely that any person, who was a
minor at relevant time, would have been imprisoned or faced with a
warrant of arrest. Therefore, consideration of the age of applicant is
implicit in the conditions of eligibility prescribed under the scheme. It
is stated that in the claims pertaining to the cases recommended by the
Committee headed by Sri Ch. Rajeshwar Rao in 1998, as a matter of
requisite administrative appropriateness, an age of 15 years as in
March 1947, was fixed in June 1998 as one of the conditions to
examine such claims for grant of freedom fighters pension. It is stated
that the claim of the petitioner would be considered in the light of the
aforesaid condition, and decision would be taken.
6. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, while
referring to the report of the Collector, Hyderabad District, without
disputing the participation of petitioner in the freedom struggle, it is
stated that the claim of the petitioner is rejected for sanction of
freedom fighters' pension, on the ground that he had not attained the
age of 15 years in March 1947.
7. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao,
Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, Assistant Solicitor General appearing for
the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue,
appearing for the 2nd respondent.
8. It is contended by Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for
petitioner that the petitioner has participated in the freedom struggle
for liberation of Hyderabad and also Goa liberation movement from
Portuguese, as such, he is entitled for grant of freedom fighters'
pension. It is submitted that in the absence of any restriction on age in
the scheme notified by the Government, it is not open for the
respondents to reject the claim of petitioner without recommending it
to the Central Government merely on the ground that he was below
the age of 15 years in March 1947. The learned counsel, in support of
his argument, has placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in
the case of State of Orissa Vs. Choudhuri Nayak .
9. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Assistant
Solicitor General and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue,
appearing for respondents that in view of large number of false
claims, certain guidelines are fixed for grant of freedom fighters'
pension, and in that view of the matter, though there is evidence to
show that the petitioner has participated in the freedom struggle, his
claim is rejected as he was below 15 years of age in March 1947.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have also
perused the salient features of the scheme. Initially, the scheme for
grant of freedom fighters' pension was introduced in the year 1972 i.e.
in the Silver Jubilee year of independence, and subsequently, a
liberalized pension scheme is introduced in 1990, which is called as
'Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980'. In the said
scheme, there is no restriction as such, with regard to the minimum
age for grant of freedom fighters' pension. It appears, when there
were certain complaints with regard to false claims, against the cases
recommended by Sri Ch.Rajeshwar Rao Committee, the Committee
which was constituted for scrutinizing the applications, it was decided
in 1998 to get the genuineness of all the cases verified by the State
Government. For the purpose of screening the false claims, the
1st respondent-Central Government appears to have instructed the
State Governments to insist for production of certificates to show that
the claimants were not below the age of 15 years at the time of
Hyderabad Liberation Movement. A copy of such letter addressed by
the Government of India is also placed on record and I have perused
the same. In this case, from the proceedings of the District Collector,
Hyderabad and the earlier recommendations made by the 2nd
respondent-Government in Letter No.371/83/FF.II-A(1)/2003-1, dated
19th May 2004, referring to various documentary evidence, it is clear
that the 2nd respondent-Government has also recommended the case of
petitioner for grant of pension, stating that such claim is genuine one.
When the claim was again referred for re-verification, only on the
ground that the petitioner was aged below 15 years in March 1947, his
claim is rejected.
11. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner
in the case of State of Orissa (1 supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
while referring to the earlier case law on the subject in the case of
Mukund Lal Bhandari Vs. Union of India (1993 Supp (3) SCC 2),
while referring to the object of the freedom fighters' pension scheme,
reiterated the criteria to be adopted to consider the claims under the
scheme. In the aforesaid judgment, it is categorically held that the
criteria for grant of pension under the scheme is not age, but
participation in the freedom struggle. The freedom fighters' pension
can, therefore, in exceptional cases, be granted even to those who
were minors at the time of struggle, if evidence clearly showed that
they had participated in the freedom struggle and fulfilled the
recommendations of the scheme. The aforesaid judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court fully supports the case of the petitioner
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In
the present case also, it is to be noticed that the participation of
petitioner in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement is not at all in
dispute. When reports were called for on the application filed by the
petitioner, in clear terms, the Collector, Hyderabad District in Letter
No.D5/1520/1999, dated 4th December 2002, addressed to the
Government, had clearly stated that the petitioner is eligible for grant
of freedom fighters' pension, and hence, recommended his case for
grant of such pension. Even on earlier occasion, when the matter was
considered by the State Government having regard to the
recommendations made by the District Collector, the State
Government has also made a specific recommendation to the 1st
respondent-Union of India that the petitioner is entitled for pension
and that the claim of the petitioner is genuine. In that view of the
matter, when the participation of petitioner in freedom struggle and
his fitness into the scheme itself is not in dispute, he cannot be
deprived of freedom fighters' pension. It appears, when there were
large number of false claims, based on the recommendations made by
the Committee headed by Sri Ch.Rajeshwar Rao, the Government of
India, as an extra measure, has addressed the State Government and
also has prescribed certain guidelines including the age factor, for the
purpose of screening genuine claims. But, as held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, in exceptional cases where
the participation of claimant is abundantly proved, it is not open for
the respondents to reject the claim of such claimant merely on the
ground that he was below the age of 15 years, so as to deprive such a
patriotic person, of pension under the scheme.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned letter, dated 29th June
2006, addressed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.18649/FF-
II/A2/A2/2006, to the 1st respondent, and all other proceedings
rejecting the claim of the petitioner for sanction of freedom fighters'
pension, are hereby quashed, with a direction to the 2nd respondent to
send its recommendations to the 1st respondent within a period of two
months from today as per the scheme, without reference to the
objection that the petitioner was aged below 15 years at the time of
freedom struggle. On receipt of such recommendations from the 2nd
respondent, the 1st respondent is directed to forthwith consider the
claim of petitioner for grant of pension and pass appropriate orders,
as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of recommendations from the 2nd
respondent-State Government.
13. Writ petition is allowed with the directions as indicated above.
No order as to costs.
______________________
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
3rd January 2012
