UTKURI RATAMMA Vs. DEPUTY SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who were sanctioned freedom fighters pension under "Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 " (for short 'the Scheme ') by the 1st respondent filed this writ petition for a mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not granting the pension from the date of their applications under the Scheme as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) THE petitioners who had participated in the freedom movement during the years 1947-48 for liberation of erstwhile Nizam State, by separate orders, were granted provisional pension subject to review by the President from 'the date of approval of the competent authority '. The 1st petitioner was granted provisional pension in the year 2004 with effect from 21.8.2003, 2nd petitioner was granted with effect from 21.8.2003 and

(3.) THE 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioners were granted freedom fighters pension on the basis of the recommendations made by the Hyderabad Special Screening Committing (HSSC) giving benefit of doubt. The petitioners had not produced either primary or secondary evidence as prescribed under the Scheme to substantiate their claims of underground sufferings. The recommendations of the State Government were based only on personal knowledge certificates of other freedom fighters furnished by the petitioners. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari 's case has no application. In the said case, pension was granted from the date of receipt of the application because the applicant therein was able to produce the required evidence as prescribed under the Scheme. But, in cases where the applicants are unable to produce the evidence as prescribed under the Scheme satisfying the eligibility criteria and pension was sanctioned based on any other document by giving benefit of doubt, it was sanctioned only prospectively i.e. from the date of the approval of the competent authority. The policy of the Government of India is in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. GANESH CHANDRA DOLAI AND OTHERS (1997) 10 SCC 289)(SLP (C). No.2325 of 1995) dated 24.4.1995 and in SLP.No.25053 of 1995 (M.R. Chelliah Thevar v. Union of India) dated 30.4.1996. The petitioners have produced neither primary nor secondary evidence as prescribed under the scheme to substantiate their claims of underground sufferings. State Government had not given their recommendation based on any official records and recommendation was based only on personal knowledge certificates of other freedom fighters. Therefore, since the petitioners were unable to produce the evidence, either primary or secondary, as required under the Scheme, their claims were considered in relaxation of the normal eligibility and evidentiary requirements and pension was sanctioned prospectively i.e. from the date of approval of the competent authority. It is further averred that pursuant to the interim directions, the request of the petitioners has been considered and by order dated 31.8.2009 their claim for grant of pension from the date of making application was rejected. Paras 6 and 7 of the said order read thus: