GUDA TARAMANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A benevolent scheme framed by Respondent No. 1 has proved to be the nemesis and a brooding ground for perennial litigation for the Petitioner?s family.

(2.) In recognition of the sacrifices made by the freedom fighters of our country, Respondent No. 1 has come out with the scheme, by name, Swathantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980. It has provided for payment of pension to the persons, who participated in the freedom struggle, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions contained in the Scheme. To this scheme was added another category, namely, boarder camp sufferers in Hyderabad Liberation Movement. A special nonofficial Screening Committee was formed to identify and recommend the cases of boarder camps. The husband of the Petitioner participated in Anti Nizam Government Movement for merger of Hyderabad State into Indian Union and made his application on 27.09.1989 for sanction of pension as a boarder camp sufferer. As his application did not receive the attention it deserved, he filed W.P. No. 5262 of 1994, which was disposed of by this Court on 11.09.1995 with the direction to the Union of India to place the papers before the Screening Committee constituted for the purpose. The Screening Committee evidently recommended his case and on the basis thereof, Respondent No. 1 called upon the Petitioner?s husband, vide letter dated 20.11.1997, to send joint photos of the spouses, specimen signatures, thumb impressions, full residential address etc.,. In response to this communication, the Petitioner?s husband sent the required documents on 05.12.1997. As no further action was taken, the Petitioner?s husband filed W.P. No. 12317 of 1999. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 24.06.1999 after recording the undertaking given on behalf of Respondent No. 1 that the application will be duly processed and a decision will be taken. On 10.09.1999, Respondent No. 1 informed the Petitioner?s husband that due to change in policy, his application was referred to Respondent No. 2 for re-verification. As nothing materialized thereafter, the Petitioner?s husband was constrained to file W.P. No. 5193 of 2000. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 30.03.2000 with the direction to Respondent No. 1 to complete the whole exercise within three months and take appropriate decision. As this order was not complied with, the Petitioner?s husband filed C.C. No. 1234 of 2000. Immediately thereafter, Respondent No. 1 passed an order on 01.11.2000 rejecting the application on the ground that Respondent No. 2 has not forwarded the relevant documents. Obviously exhausted of all his energies to fight the litigation further, the Petitioner?s husband died on 21.11.2001. On the Petitioner approaching Respondent No. 2, it has sent its recommendations to Respondent No. 1 on 30.03.2002. Even thereafter, Respondent No. 1 has not moved in the matter and it was now the turn of the Petitioner to take a plunge into the litigation by filing W.P. No. 2237 of 2002. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 12.03.2003 with the direction to Respondent No. 1 to pass appropriate ordeRs. At long last, Respondent No. 1 passed an order on 03.08.2003, whereby it has sanctioned pension in favour of the Petitioner prospectively. To the extent of denying the benefit of sanction of pension from the date of the application of her husband, the Petitioner felt aggrieved by the said decision of Respondent No. 1 and filed the present writ petition in order to challenge the same.

(3.) A counter-affidavit which is high in volume and low in material contents has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Though the background pertaining to the scheme and the alleged devious nature of the recommendations made by Sri Rajeswar Rao Committee was narrated in extenso in the counter-affidavit, it failed to offer justification in treating the Petitioner?s case under doubtful category giving benefit of doubt. Even according to the version came out with by Respondent No. 1 in its counter-affidavit, not being satisfied with the report sent by Sri Rajeswar Rao Committee, several applications including the Petitioner?s husband's were referred to the State Government for further verification and it is only after the State Government has re-verified and recommended that pension has been sanctioned to the Petitioner prospectively giving her benefit of doubt.