GOWRAMMA Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND THE UNDER SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is listed for orders regarding noncompliance of office objections. However, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant, it is taken up for final disposal. The appellant has sought to challenge the order dated 18.06.2013 of learned single Judge of this Court. The case of the appellant is that she is wife of late R. Muniswamy, a freedom fighter and a beneficiary of the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme of the State Government. After death of her husband, pension that was ordered in his favour has been extended to appellant. After the death of Muniswamy, an application was made by the appellant seeking grant, of family pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, ('Central Pension Scheme', for short) on the ground that the appellant's husband had undergone imprisonment for a period of 1 1/2 months during September and October 1947 in Mysore Chalo movement and that he had also undergone imprisonment for a period of six months during July 1942 and he was entitled to pension under Central Pension Scheme, which scheme is available not only for freedom fighters, but also for his family members i.e., for his widow and as such, she is entitled to receive the same.

(2.) THE said application was rejected by 2nd respondent on the ground that Mysore Chalo movement was not recognized for grant of pension by the Central Government and that the Jail Certificate, wherein it is stated that one Muniswamy had undergone imprisonment for a period of six months during July 1942, did not conclusively prove that it pertained to R. Muniswamy, the late husband of the appellant and also on the ground that the Central Government has fixed age limit of sufferer for consideration of claims as 15 years at the time of his participation in the freedom movement. In the instant case, it is seen that the appellant's husband - R. Muniswamy was aged about 53 years in 1981, which means that he had not completed age of 15 years in 1942. Therefore, he was not eligible for pension under Central Pension Scheme. It was also mentioned in the said letter that voter I.D., furnished by appellant could not be treated as conclusive proof of the date of birth of late R. Muniswamy and as such, the same could not be believed.

(3.) ON going through the order impugned, it is clearly seen that learned single Judge rightly rejected the petition filed by the appellant seeking to quash the order dated 13.09.2011 of respondent No. 2, rejecting her application for grant of pension under 'Central Pension Scheme' and has rightly rejected her prayer for a direction to respondent No. 2 - Deputy Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, to consider her case for family pension, for the reason stated in the impugned order. Hence, this Court find no ground to admit the appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed in limine.