* The Hon'ble Mr Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy + Writ Petition No.27180 of 2007 % DT.24.06.2011 Between: # A.Aswatha Narayana …Petitioner Vs. $ The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi and two others. … Respondents ^ Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.Chakrapani ! Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri M.Rameshwari Magineni for Mr.Ponnam Ashok Goud, Asst.Solicitor General ! Counsel for respondent No.3: AGP for Home < Gist: > Head note: ? Cases referred: 1. (2001) 8 SCC 8 : 2001 AIR SCW 3843 2. (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 472 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.27180 of 2007 Between: A.Aswatha Narayana ..... Petitioner AND Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi and two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.Chakrapani Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri M.Rameshwari Magineni for Mr.Ponnam Ashok Goud, Asst.Solicitor General Counsel for respondent No.3: AGP for Home The Court made the following: Order: This case is a paradigm of how genuine freedom fighters, who are caught in the bureaucratic redtapism and their supine indifference in addressing the legitimate grievances pertaining to sanctioning of freedom fighters pension under the scheme of pension to Freedom Fighters, 1972, are suffering (for short ‘the Scheme’). This litigation has a chequered career and it is a paradox that the petitioner, who is a freedom fighter, is made to fight the litigation for more than three decades to earn his pension. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are as under: The petitioner, who participated in freedom struggle, made his application for State as well as Central Pensions provided under the Scheme prior to 1976. As the petitioner’s application, which was forwarded by the State Government vide Memo No.4911/FF.1/74-2, dated 10-06-1976, has not received the attention of respondent Nos.1 and 2, he has filed W.P.No.30679 of 1997, which was disposed of by this Court on 24-11-1997, with the direction to respondent No.2- Deputy Secretary to Government of India to send the report to respondent No.1- Secretary to Government of India, who shall then place it before the Hyderabad Screening Committee without any delay. Thereafter, the Under Secretary to the Government of India addressed letter, dated 30th March, 2005, to the Principal Secretary to Government of A.P., stating that as no Screening Committee is in existence, it is not possible to place the report before the said Committee as directed by this Court and requesting to furnish the original application of the petitioner along with verification-cum-entitlement report, verified by all the authorities in the State, and all the correspondence made between the Ministry and State Government, so that further action will be taken on merits. Subsequently, the Deputy Secretary to Government vide Memo No.15013/FF.II/A2/2005, dated 14-03-2006, requested the Collector, Prakasam District, to furnish the copies of Government references/certificates/documents and all other communications held in the matter along with his specific recommendation in respect of the petitioner, as desired by the Government of India, so as to enable its onward transmission to Government of India for taking necessary action. In response thereto, the Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam District, addressed letter, dated 20-09- 2006, to the Deputy Secretary to Government, wherein it is stated that the petitioner was sanctioned state pension vide G.O.Ms.No.1554 Revenue (F.F.) Department, dated 20-10- 1984, and that the connected record in D.Dis.No.B2/13502/1982, dated 19-03-1983, was destroyed after the expiry of the prescribed period and that even after a thorough search, no record pertaining to the petitioner was available. No counter-affidavit is filed by any of the respondents. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner was sanctioned a pittance of Rs.200/- towards state pension vide G.O.Ms.No.1554, dated 20-10-1984. By Memorandum No.4911/FF.1/74-21, dated 10-06-1976, the Assistant Secretary to Government Revenue (FF) Department has informed the petitioner that his application has been sent to the Government of India vide Govt. Letter No.4911/FF.1/74-1, dated 10-06-1976, for sanction of Central Government Pension. Despite the said fact, the fate of the petitioner is still hanging in balance with the Government of India expressing its helplessness in processing the petitioner’s file without the purported original application of the petitioner. This Court is unable to comprehend this situation because as noted above, as far back as 10-06-1976, the Assistant Secretary to Government has informed the petitioner that his application was sent to the Government of India. The District Collector, Prakasam District, has now come up with the version that the connected record relating to sanction of state pension to the petitioner is destroyed and the record is not available. The petitioner is clearly caught in the crossfire between the State and the Central Governments. It is a matter of regret that the petitioner, who fought for freedom of this Nation, is made to fight for his[1] own livelihood for decades, obviously, surviving with what little the State Government has sanctioned to him in the year 1984. It is trite that in a welfare state such as ours, the freedom fighters’ pension cannot be perceived as an act of charity but as a token of gratitude the nation pays to those real heroes, who fought for freedom of this Nation and were responsible for our liberation from the clutches of foreign rule. While most of others were busy in promoting their personal and family welfare, this small breed of patriots placed the Nation’s interests above their self interests and lost all their material wealth leaving themselves and their family members in a state of penury. It is indeed most unfortunate that such persons are treated with scant regard and are subjected to the procedural wrangles resulting in exhausting what little energy that is left in them in their quest for earning the pension in order to earn two square meals a day. While dealing with the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1983, the Apex Court in Gurdial Singh vs. Union of India1 held as under: “…It should not be forgotten that the persons intended to be covered by the Scheme had suffered for the country about half a century back and had not expected to be rewarded for the imprisonment suffered by them. Once the country has decided to honour such freedom fighters, the bureaucrats entrusted with the job of examining the cases of such freedom fighters are expected to keep in mind the purpose and object of the Scheme.” These sentiments were reiterated in C.Venkat Reddy and others vs. Union of India and others[2]. Though this Writ Petition is pending for nearly four years, no counter-affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents, which thoroughly reflects the apathy of the respondents to the petitioner’s genuine cause. Under these circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms: (1) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to examine the petitioner’s case with reference to the available material; (2) In the absence of the original record, they shall take GO.Ms.No.1554, Revenue FF.1 Department, dated 20-10-1984, a copy of which is filed in this Writ Petition, as the basis for the petitioner’s claim for sanction of freedom fighters’ pension and treat him as eligible for grant of such pension and; (3) Within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall pass appropriate order in terms of the direction given in (2) supra and communicate the same to the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.35510 of 2007, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 24th June, 2011 Note: LR copy to be marked (B/o) lur 1. (2001) 8 SCC 8 : 2001 AIR SCW 3843 [2] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 472