BHONAGIRI SAIDAMMA Vs. SECRETARY GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REVENUE FFO DEPARTMENT IV SECRETARIAT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by a widow of a freedom fighter who is entitled for pension. In fact, pension was granted to her with effect from 1-8-1980 and that is clear from the letter No. 12/2460/73-FF(S2) of Government of India addressed to the Accountant-General Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The quantum mentioned was Rs. 200.00per month. The above pension was paid to the petitioner from 1-8-1980 till 1984, but abruptly it was stopped from that period. No order was passed. But, now, after 8 years, counter is filed by the respondents in which they seek to defend the stoppage of payment of pension to the petitioner. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner was granted pension under the scheme framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under G.O. Ms. No. 25, Revenue Department dated 4-1-1979 and that in view of what is stated in paragraph 4 thereof, as she is in receipt of the pension in State Scheme, she is disentitled to receive the pension under Central scheme and as such, the payment under central scheme was discontinued.

(2.) Ms. M. Padmalatha Yadav, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contends that the pension under State scheme was sanctioned only in the year 1979 and even though paragraph 4 thereof states that grant of State pension will not entitle the receipt of pension from the Government of India, but the Government of India has issued the sanction orders at a later date and the sanction made by the Government of India always prevails over the sanction by the State of Andhra Pradesh. That apart, in the communication referred to above, the Central Government makes it very clear that the pension which has been granted under the said orders is in addition to the pension, if any, sanctioned to the freedom fighter from the State Government. The pension fund flows from the Central Government and as such, it is highly inappropriate for the State Government to impose a condition that receipt of central pension will debar a freedom fighter from receiving the State pension. To reconcile both the schemes and that too, in a beneficial scheme like this, pertaining to the freedom lighters, the interpretation should be in favour of the beneficiaries. By doing so, the reasonable construction should be that de hors the State pension, the petitioner is entitled for Central pension and more so, in view of the specific clause in the order passed by the Central Government that the central pension is in addition to the State pension. When the Central Government does not raise any objection, the respondents are not entitled to raise that objection.

(3.) In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to continue the payment of pension under the Central Scheme right from the period of the stoppage of the same and continue to pay the same further. For payment of arrears from 1984 till-date, three months time is granted. From next month onwards, the payment shall be regular. No costs.