RUDRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner who claims to be a person who had undergone imprisonment in connection with Freedom Movement and had been granted freedom fighters' pension pursuant to an application made by him, has challenged the order of the State Government cancelling the pension.

(2.) IT appears the petitioner had been granted freedom fighters' pension by the State Government as per the order dated 7-8-1992 under which pension was granted with effect from 22-11-1980 onwards. The petitioner had continued to receive pension after the said order and it appears that the petitioner had been issued with a notice dated 24-7-1996 calling upon him to furnish particulars supporting the factum of his imprisonment in connection with the Freedom Movement. According to the petitioner, petitioner had responded to this notice and had also produced several documents like Jail Certificate and affidavits supportive of this claim that he had undergone imprisonment. It was also mentioned as per this reply dated 5-8-1996 that the said documents may be accepted as supportive of his claim and the grant of pension in his favour be continued.

(3.) THREE years thereafter, it appears, the State Government has issued another notice dated 5-11-1999 again calling upon the petitioner for production of supportive documents for his claim and to be present for an enquiry in this matter and hearing as on 9-12-1999 before the under Secretary for the Government of Karnataka, Administrative Department. The petitioner who had already submitted supportive documents as per his letter dated 5-8-1996, appears to have expressed his inability to be present for the enquiry on that day and had sent a telegraphic communication seeking for any other date of hearing. This had been followed by a letter dated 20-12-1999 whereby the petitioner sought for extension of time if any further material was required to be placed before the concerned Secretary. The petitioner reiterated that he had already furnished the relevant documents in this regard and he has been receiving pension based on the same. However, the Government, being oblivious of these developments and even without referring to any of these developments, appears to have passed an order dated 22-8-2000 cancelling the grant of pension in favour of the petitioner to be made effective immediately holding that that the petitioner is not able to substantiate his claim for pension and further that he had remained absent. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this court in writ jurisdiction.