GURAPPA BENUR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the letter dated 16. 10. 2000 (Annexure-L) of the 1st respondent. Further the petitioner sought a direction directing the respondents to consider his application dated 22. 03. 2001 (Annexure-M) and grant pension under the Swathantrata Sanman Pension Scheme from the date of his original application i. e. w. e. f. 10. 11. 1987 at the rates as applicable from time to time along with arrears of pension and interest at the rat of 18% from the date of application till the date of payment.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be a Freedom fighter who participated in the Hyderabad Freedom Struggle. He applied to the Central Government for pension under Swatantrata Sainik Sanman Pension scheme. His application was received in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 25. 1. 1982. By communication dated 8. 2. 1993 it has been rejected on the ground that the application is time barred and it is not supported by any documentary evidence from the official records. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this court in W. P. No. 14589/1999 which had come up for hearing on 6th March 2000. This court has allowed the said writ petition and quashed the order dated 8. 2. 1993 and permitted the petitioner to represent the application for pension with necessary documents to the 1st respondent. Further this court has directed the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the same in terms of the scheme within six months from the date of the receipt of the application. After the disposal of the said writ petition, the petitioner has filed application along with necessary documents. Instead of considering the same in accordance with the scheme, the 1st respondent through its letter dated 16. 10. 2000 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the State Government has not recommended the petitioners case, without a specific recommendation from the State Government and other deficiencies, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered or he is entitled for grant of central pension. Further, it is stated in the said letter that the ministry is however ready to reconsider the claim of the petitioner, if he furnish the required evidence duly verified by the state Government. Assailing the correctness so the said letter dated 16. 10. 2000, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior standing counsel for 1st respondent and learned counsel for 2nd respondent at a considerable length of time, reassessed the entire matter with the assistance of learned counsel for all the parties.