PANJALA RAJAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be a freedom fighter. He statedly participated in the armed freedom struggle against the erstwhile Nizam of Hyderabad. He has been requesting the Government of India for grant of Freedom Fighters Pension (FFP) under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (the Pension Scheme, for brevity) forthe last twenty years, in vain. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition seeking direction to Government of India, sole respondent herein, to sanction pension to the petitioner under the Pension Scheme. He also prays for a declaration that letter No.112/6187/86-FF (HC)-A, dated 08-7-2004 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, as illegal and arbitrary. By the said letter, the petitioner was informed thatthe Government of India declines to accept the report of the State Government recommending grant of pension to the petitioner

(2.) The background fact of the matter is as follows. The petitioner claims that he has participated in the freedom movement during 1947-1948 against Nizam, for liberation of Hyderabad State and mergerinto Indian Union. According to him, he worked in a bordercamp at Chanda in Maharashtra under the camp incharge Sri. V. Rajeswara Rao. After the respondent announced the pension scheme, the petitionersubmitted an application in 1985 duly enclosing the necessary proof i.e., certificate issued by camp in-charge showing that the petitioner was a bona fide activist of Chanda camp. He alleges thatthe Government of India got enquiry conducted through the State Government. But in 2002 again collected another set of application from the petitioner in which by inadvertence he mentioned that the camp was at Hanmakonda instead of Chanda. The respondent rejected the requestfor pension by letter dated 01-8-2003, for that reason. Therefore, he approached the State Government, who sent a clarification vide letter No. 43379/FF.1/A2/03-1, dated 21 -10-2003 informing the respondent thatthe petitioner participated in the camp at Chanda and requesting the Central Government to sanction pension to the petitioner. However, the same was not accepted and the petitioner was informed by the respondent that it is not possible to accept the fresh report of the State Government.

(3.) The section officer in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent, opposing the writ petition. It is stated that as per the scheme, the verification and recommendation report of the State Government/U.T. Administration is mandatory and, therefore, it is not possible to deal with the applications for pension sent directly to the Central Government. It is further alleged that the claims of persons, who applied for pension pertinent to border camps in Hyderabad liberation movement were not accepted initially, as they did not fulfill eligibility criteria under the pension scheme. In 1983, Government of India constituted special screening committee underthe chairmanship of Shri Govind Bhai Shroff to scrutinize the applications. The said committee made an extensive tour of the regions comprising erstwhile State of Hyderabad with regard to various camps from which the armed struggle was waged and noticed that there are 98 camps (41 in Andhra Pradesh, 37 in Maharashtra and 20 in Karnataka) and as many as 11,000 participants took active role in the freedom movement. The Committee recommended 7,000 cases during its term and pension was sanctioned accordingly. In 1996, the committee was reconstituted under the chairmanship of Shri N. Giri Prashad, Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) and on his death in April 1997, Shri Ch. Rajeswar Rao, Memberof Legislative Assembly, Andhra Pradesh, was appointed as chairman. The committee again recommended 13,500 cases during its term from April 1997 to May 1998. However, in view of various complaints received by the committee, it was decided to get the genuineness of the claims verified by the State Government. In the application submitted by the petitioner, he claimed to have worked at Hanmakonda camp underthe camp in-charge Sri V. Rajeswar Rao. As there was no camp at Hanmakonda, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. The State Government also sent its report stating that the petitioner was in Hanmakonda camp, which did not figure in 98 camps recognized by special screening committee. None-the-less, the petitioner made a fresh claim. A fresh verification report was submitted by the State Government on 21-10-2003 showing that the petitioner worked in the camp at Chanda and, therefore, the claim was considered doubtful and the petitioner was informed accordingly.