K RAJA GOPAL RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the third round of litigation by the petitioner in relation to his claim for grant of pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (for short, 'the 1980 Scheme'). Writ Petition No. 22848 of 2004 filed by him for quashing the rejection of his application by respondent No. 1 vide letter No. 112/6087/97-FF(HC), dated 25-6-2002 was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 16-6-2005 by directing the said respondent to re-consider the petitioner's case and pass appropriate order within two months. Contempt Case No. 1462 of 2005 filed by the petitioner with the allegation of non-compliance of order dated 16-6-2005 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge because, in the meanwhile, respondent No. 1 again rejected his claim for pension.

(2.) In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of communication dated 3-1 -2006 and also for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to sanction pension under the 1980 Scheme. He has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari v. Union of India and Gurdial Singh v. Union of India and pleaded that the respondents are bound to sanction pension under the 1980 Scheme keeping in view the fact that Sri K. Kistaiah, against whom arrest warrant was issued along with him, has already been granted pension vide letter No. 112/698/98-FF(HC)(F), dated 12-9-2003. In paragraph 8 of his affidavit, the petitioner has averred as under:

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India, Sri S.D. Kaushik, Under Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs, has spelt out the conditions of eligibility prescribed for grant of pension under the 1980 Scheme. He has also given the details of the recommendations made by the Hyderabad Special Screening Committee constituted by the Government of India. In paragraphs 10 and 11, he has reiterated the reasons set out in communication dated 3-1-2006 and averred that the petitioner is not entitled to pension because the documents produced by him were not treated sufficient for accepting his claim as freedom fighter. In paragraph 15 of his affidavit, Sri S.D. Kaushik has averred as under: