BOMMAKANTI SITA RAMAMMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An eighty two year old (widow of a freedom fighter) has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court questioning the action of the respondents in not sanctioning her freedom fighter's pension under the Swatantra Sammaan Pension Scheme 1980 on the ground of non-receipt of the re-verification report. The petitioner's husband is said to have participated in the freedom struggle against the Nizam of Hyderabad and the Portuguese in Goa; to have participated in the Hyderabad Liberation Struggle; to have been released from jail after police action; and to have died, because of torture by the jail authorities, in the year 1949. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the first respondent on 28.4.2012 claiming freedom fighter's pension. The second respondent, by letter dated 29.5.2012, requested the third respondent to cause verification and submit a re-verification report Alleging that the third respondent had not undertaken the exercise of re-verification, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) When the matter came up on 12.6.2013, this Court granted time both to the learned Assistant Solicitor General and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) to obtain instructions. On being informed on 19.6.2013 that the matter was still pending consideration before the third respondent, this Court directed the third respondent to carry out the exercise of re-verification forthwith and submit a report to this Court within a week. On 26.6.2013, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area), on instructions, submitted that the third respondent had caused an antecedent verification which revealed that the petitioner's husband was a freedom fighter, and a copy of the verification report had been forwarded to the second respondent on 24.6.2013. This Court granted time to the learned Government Pleader to ascertain from the second respondent as to whether the verification report had been received by him from the third respondent and whether he had, in turn, forwarded it to the first respondent. On 28.6.2013, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area), on instructions, submitted that the second respondent had, vide letter dated 27.6.2013, forwarded the re-verification report to the first respondent; and it is for the first respondent to take an appropriate decision on whether or not to grant freedom fighter's pension to the petitioner.

(3.) The indifference exhibited by the authorities that be, to the needs of those who fought for the freedom of this country, is a matter of grave concern. A debt of gratitude is owed to the family, of those who valiantly fought in the freedom struggle and died in the process, by all citizens of this country as it is their selfless sacrifice which has resulted in this nation being a free and vibrant democracy today. The pension which is granted, either to them or to their widow, is a measly sum which is no compensation for their sacrifice. Procrastination by Government officials, in processing their request for grant of pension, is unpardonable and a matter of great shame and regret. The petitioner's application for grant of pension was pending verification before the third respondent for nearly a year. It is only after the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court were efforts made to cause a verification which now reveals that the petitioner's husband is a freedom fighter. As the petitioner's application has now been forwarded, along with the verification report, to the first respondent, it is but appropriate that the first respondent examines the petitioner's application for grant of pension, in accordance with law, at the earliest and, in any event, not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit a representation to the first respondent enclosing a copy of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.