IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 955 of 2006 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/01/2005 in WP NO : 25357 OF 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Banothu Mangya, S/o.Late Mathya, R/o.Ammapalem Village, Konijerla (M), Khammam District. 2 Shaik Moula Saheb, S/o.Galib Rupla, R/o.Ammapalem Village, Konijerla (M), Khammam District. 3 Gugulothu Ganya, S/o.G.Late Rupla, R/o.Ammapalem Village, Konijerla (M), Khammam District. 4 Parepul Laxminarayana, S/o.Late Ramayya, R/o.Ammapalem Village, Konijerla (M), Khammam District. 5 Bellamkonda Aswadhanarayana, S/o.Late Appaiah, R/o.Ammapalem Village, Konijerla (M), Khammam District. 6 Kuppala Laxminarasaiah, S/o.Late Veeraiah, R/o.Ammapalem Village, Konijerla (M), Khammam District. 7 Shaik Lalu Hussian, S/o.Late Galib Saheb, R/o.Ammapalem Village, Konijerla (M), Khammam District. 8 Tejavothu Chandru, S/o.Late Ramulu, R/o.Ammapalem Village, Konijerla (M), Khammam District. ..... APPELLANTS AND The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, (Freedom Fighters Division) rep. by its Dy.Secretary to Government of India, Laknayak Bhavan, 1st floor, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent : MR.P.RAKESH The Court made the following : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO :955 of 2006 JUDGMENT: ( Per the Honourable Smt.Justice T.Meenakumari) Aggrieved by the Order, in W.P.No.25357 of 2004 dated 18.1.2005, the writ petitioners-appellants preferred this appeal. The appellants-writ petitioners ﬁled the above writ petition seeking to declare the inaction of the respondent in considering their applications dated 13.2.1996 for grant of pension under Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme as illegal and arbitrary. The learned Single Judge having observed that on the earlier occasion, the writ petition ﬁled by some of the writ petitioners herein for the self-same relief has been dismissed and there was no reason to entertain the writ petition, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been preferred. A counter-aﬃdavit was ﬁled by the respondent stating that the names of the appellants-writ petitioners do not appear in the computerized records as maintainable and available of the cases recommended by the Hyderabad Special Screening Committee and therefore, their claims can be considered under normal provisions of the Scheme on receipt of State Verification reports. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that appellants Nos.3 & 8 died and none of their legal representatives have chosen to come on record and hence, the writ appeal against appellants 3 & 8 gets abated. Insofar as other writ petitioners-appellants is concerned, in view of the statement made in the counter- affidavit that the claim of the appellants can be considered under normal provisions of the Scheme on receipt of State Veriﬁcation reports, without going into the merits of the case, We feel that it would suﬃce if a direction is issued to the respondent to consider the claim of the other appellants, in accordance with law, on receipt of the State verification report. Subject to the above observation, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice T.Meenakumari ____________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Dated: 2.9.2008 Nn/gurc. HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 955 of 2006 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Honourable Smt.Justice T.Meenakumari) 2nd September, 2008