GOSIKA VEERAIAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the legality of the order dated 03.12.2019, passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5427 of 2014, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that although the appellant claimed that he should be granted the benefit of Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, since he failed to bring his case within the said Scheme, the benefit of the said Scheme could not be granted to him.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant claimed that he had participated in the Anti-Nizam Government Movement for the merger of Hyderabad State with Indian Union along with several other freedom fighters. According to him, he had participated in the armed attack in Vavillapally Village, where the Nizam Police and Razakars were camped, in which three freedom fighters became martyrs, and four Razakars were killed. He further claimed that he had participated in the armed attack on Nizam Police and Razakars at Kompally and Domalapally Villages, in which Nizam Police were killed. According to the appellant, considering his involvement in the said two attacks, the Nizam Government had issued a arrest warrant against him. In order to evade the arrest warrant, he went underground for a period of six months. Moreover, according to him, during the period he was underground, he worked in Jammalamadaka border camp under the leadership of Sri K. Kistam Raju, and Sri K. Gurunatha Reddy. After the merger of the Hyderabad State with the Indian Union, he came out of the underground activities.

(3.) Furthermore, according to the appellant, the Union of India had framed a Scheme called "Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme" ("the Scheme", for short), with a view to provide financial assistance to the persons, who had suffered in the Anti-Nizam Movement for the merger of Hyderabad State with the Indian Union. Since the appellant was eligible for the said Scheme, he applied for the same in 1995. The cases of those persons who had applied under the said Scheme were referred to the Hyderabad Special Screening Committee. Since his application had not been considered, the appellant filed a writ petition, namely W.P.No.2802 of 1998, before this Court, for seeking a direction to the respondents therein to consider his application, and to grant him pension. Consequently, in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in a batch of writ petition, the Union of India framed Guidelines, and as per the said Guidelines, the application of the appellant along with other applications were sent to the Government of Andhra Pradesh for verification of the facts mentioned in the applications. Consequently, the Government of Andhra Pradesh requested the District Collector, Nalgonda, to enquire into the matter and submit a verification report.