V VEERAIAH Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, this Court must observe that an instantaneous reaction to injustice must be part of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens and to put the State and the Government in their limits. This case would demonstrate that this Court is justified in making these observations.

(2.) The petitioner was a freedom fighter. He fought against the all powerful Nizam State of Hyderabad. In accordance with the scheme of the State Government to give pension to freedom fighters, he applied for the same some time in 1978. The Tahsildar enquired into his application and sent a report on 19-5-1980. Based on such report, the Government issued an order being G.O.Ms.No.3469, Revenue (FF.II) Department, dated 1-8-1980 sanctioning, on provisional basis, the freedom fighters pension under the said scheme to the petitioner at Rs.200.00 per month with effect from 6-3-1978. The pension sanctioned is for the lifetime of the recipient. The petitioner was also requested by the Government to submit pension papers including his photograph in duplicate, specimen signatures, left hand thumb impression, finger impressions, date of birth certificate etc., to the concerned Tahsildar to enable the Accountant General to issue pension payment order to him. The petitioner appears to have complied with the requirements, but he was not paid any pension. Therefore, he filed the writ petition on 26-7-1994 when he was aged 69 years. He seeks a declaration that the action of the respondents in not releasing pension in terms of G.O.Ms.No.3469, dated 1-8-1980 with effect from 6-3-1978 at the rate of Rs.200/- per month is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. Rule Nisi was served on the Government long back, but no counter-affidavit is filed.

(3.) In a case like this where the petitioner claims a right based on a Government Order, it is reasonable to infer that all the petition averments stand admitted. It is improper for the Government and the respondents to sleep over the matters by not even filing a counter-affidavit. Therefore, Sri S. Lakshma Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is justified in contending that until the Government Order is withdrawn or reviewed, the respondents cannot withdraw the release of pension.