ANGADI KOTRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions raise a common issue. The petitioners claim that they participated in the Mysore chalo movement in 1947. On the basis of the rules framed, they made applications for grant of political pension. As contemplated under the rules, an enquiry was conducted by the authorities. After conducting the enquiry, they were satisfied that the claim is genuine and by order dated 28-9-1983 and other dates, referred to in the respective petitions, pension was granted to the petitioners. they were receiving the pension since then. Thereafter, it is seen that proceedings were initiated by the respondents for cancellation of the political pension on the ground that the grant of pension was incorrect. The typical show-cause notice issued in this behalf reads as follows, (this is similar in all cases):<IMG>sk-514.jpg</IMG> the petitioners seem to have replied to this show-cause notice. After receipt of the reply, the impugned order was passed by the authorities rescinding the political pension granted to all the petitioners in these writ petitions. It is these orders that are challenged by the petitioners in these writ petitions.

(2.) I have heard Mr. L. M. Chidanandayya, Learned Counsel For The Petitioners, as also Mr. N. k. Ramesh, Learned Government advocate, for the respondents.

(3.) RULES have been framed by the central government in the matter of grant of pension. It is called as the Karnataka state freedom fighters' welfare rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the rules ). Under the rules a person, who comes within the ambit of claiming a pension, may make an application in the prescribed form to the authorities and if he satisfies the eligibility requirements laid down in the rules, political pension is awarded to him. The rules lay down that every application shall be accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by the applicant before a magistrate or any other person authorised by law to administer oath to the effect that he was a freedom fighter. A certificate should also accompany which states that the freedom fighter concerned had been sentenced to imprisonment or suffered detention of three months issued by the authorities of the jail where the imprisonment or detention was undergone, or by a contemporary freedom fighter or any other responsible person. There was a stipulation that the annual income from all sources should not exceed Rs. 2,400/- per annum. But this stipulation has later been deleted. The state government may after verifying the particulars furnished and after such enquiries as it considers necessary, sanction the pension or reject the application.